STROUD NURSING & REHAB

721 WEST OLIVE, STROUD, OK 74079 (918) 968-2075
For profit - Limited Liability company 58 Beds Independent Data: November 2025 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
16/100
#133 of 282 in OK
Last Inspection: February 2024

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

Overview

Stroud Nursing & Rehab has a Trust Grade of F, which means it is considered poor and raises significant concerns about the quality of care provided. It ranks #133 out of 282 facilities in Oklahoma, placing it in the top half, but it’s still not a strong recommendation. The facility is improving, as the number of reported issues has decreased from 5 in 2024 to 1 in 2025. Staffing is a notable strength, with a turnover rate of 0%, well below the state average, indicating that staff members are likely experienced and familiar with the residents. However, the facility has incurred $32,858 in fines, which is concerning and suggests ongoing compliance issues. While RN coverage is average, there have been critical incidents, such as a resident suffering serious burns without timely medical evaluation and a failure to protect residents from potential harm, indicating serious lapses in care. Families should weigh these strengths and weaknesses carefully when considering this facility for their loved ones.

Trust Score
F
16/100
In Oklahoma
#133/282
Top 47%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
5 → 1 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
Turnover data not reported for this facility.
Penalties
✓ Good
$32,858 in fines. Lower than most Oklahoma facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 14 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.
★★★☆☆
3.0
Overall Rating
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 5 issues
2025: 1 issues

The Good

  • 5-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

3-Star Overall Rating

Near Oklahoma average (2.6)

Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities

Federal Fines: $32,858

Below median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

The Ugly 19 deficiencies on record

2 life-threatening 1 actual harm
May 2025 1 deficiency 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 observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident was not touched sexually by another resident for 1 (#1) of 5 sampled resident reviewed for abuse. The DON s...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident was not touched sexually by another resident for 1 (#1) of 5 sampled resident reviewed for abuse. The DON stated 55 residents resided at the facility. Findings: On 05/20/25 at 12:05 p.m., Res #1 and Res #2 were observed in the dining area of the facility. They were sitting at opposite ends of the room which was approximately 20 feet apart. The residents did not show any outward signs of distress while in the room together. The residents did not look at each other. On 05/20/25 at 3:18 p.m., Res #1 was observed in an activity with other residents in the dining room. Res #2 was observed in the same activity sitting approximately 20 feet away from Res #1. No obvious signs of distress were observed from Res #1. Neither Res #1 nor Res #2 looked at the other during the activity but did move within 10 of each other during the activity without incident or signs of emotional distress. A facility policy titled Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation and Misappropriation Prevention Program, dated April 2021, read in part, The resident abuse, neglect and exploitation prevention program consists of a facility-wide commitment and resource allocation to support the following objectives: 1. Protect residents from abuse, neglect, exploitation or misappropriation of property by anyone including, but not necessarily limited to; a. facility staff; b. other residents; c. consultants; d. volunteers; e. staff from other agencies; f. family members; g. legal representative; h. friends; i. visitors; and/or j. any other individual. An MDS quarterly assessment, dated 05/06/25, showed Res #1 had a BIMS score of 8 (this score indicated the resident's cognition was moderately impaired at the time of the test). A progress note, dated 05/12/25 at 4:55 p.m., showed Res #5 had reported to ADON they had observed Res #2 place their hand down the blouse of Res #1. The note further showed Res #1 reported they had moved their arms to protect themselves and told Res #2 to stop which was what Res #1 stated Res #2 did. The note showed Res #1 had been assessed by ADON and no injuries had been identified. A social services note, dated 05/13/25 at 12:20 p.m., showed the social services director had visited Res #1 to check on them. The note showed Res #1 had been offered the opportunity to talk about the incident, but they declined and stated they were ok. A social services note, dated 05/14/25 at 4:52 p.m., showed Res #1 was offered mental health counseling and the resident declined. The note showed Res #1 reported they were ok and did not need to speak with anyone about the incident with Res #2. On 05/20/25 at 12:50 p.m., Res #5 stated on 05/11/25 at about 9:00 p.m., they had witnessed Res #2 with their hand down the blouse of Res #1. They stated it had occurred in the dining area on the west side of the facility. They stated when they entered the dining room Res #2 was pulling their hand out of the shirt of Res #1 then brushed Res #1 on the cheek with their hand. Res #5 stated Res #2 stopped the behavior when they entered the dining room. They stated they did not tell anyone about it until the next day. They stated they had not seen Res #2 do that type of thing before or since that evening. They stated there were plenty of staff on duty that evening but they were going here and there working. They stated staff did not usually stay around the west sitting area or dining room during the evenings that they had ever seen. On 05/20/25 at 3:26 p.m., Res #1 was asked if they were having any difficulties with staff or other residents. Res #1 stated there was a person at the facility that bothered them. They stated Res #2 had grabbed their breast and asked them if they liked it. They stated they live toward the back of a hallway and Res #2 the other end. They stated they must go past Res #2 every time they went to a meal or activity, and it bothered them. They stated they are not afraid of Res #2 but angry with them every time they look at them. They stated they had not told staff about how they feel and did not want this surveyor to either. They stated they feel safe at the facility and that Res #2 had never done that before or since. They agreed to talk with the surveyor again the next day. On 05/21/25 at 11:00 a.m., Res #1 was observed sitting in the dining room drinking a soda. They were asked if they wanted to speak further about the incident with Res #2. They stated they did. They stated they felt safe at the facility and again stated they did not want anything to happen to Res #2 because they were just like them [Res #1 pointed to their head when they stated Res #2 was like them]. Res #1 stated they were feeling depressed and angry over the incident and disliked having to pass by Res #2's room every day and see them every day. The resident again stated they did not want anything to happen to Res #2 and that they can stay at the facility. They gave this surveyor permission to inform the staff they felt angry and depressed over the situation. Res #1 was asked about staffing in the evening and where they were located during the evening shift. They stated there is enough staff and they usually work in the halls helping residents. They stated they don't stay in that area (indicated the dining room and sitting area on the west side of the building). On 05/21/25 at 12:19 p.m., DON was asked about the incident between Res #1 and Res #2 on 05/11/25. They stated Res #2 had not demonstrated that type of behavior previously and when talked to about it Res #2 admitted they did it and promised not to do it again. They stated they monitored Res #2's movements and they are on a list to see their mental health provider. When asked about Res #1 they stated the resident had not shown or reported any discomfort following the incident and had been offered mental health counseling, but the resident had declined the offer. They stated they continued to visit Res #1 daily and did not appear to show any negative effects from the incident. DON stated they do ensure the two residents are set apart during activities. The DON was informed of the anger and emotional distress reported to this surveyor. The DON stated they were unaware of those feelings but would immediately act on them. They stated they would visit Res #1 immediately.
Feb 2024 5 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

Based on record review and interview, the facility to ensure OHCA was contacted for a resident that had a serious mental illness for one (#19) of four sampled residents reviewed for recommendations fo...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility to ensure OHCA was contacted for a resident that had a serious mental illness for one (#19) of four sampled residents reviewed for recommendations for evaluation and determination for PASARR level II assessments. The DON identified 35 residents with a serious mental health diagnosis. The facility's Behavioral Assessment, Intervention and Monitoring policy, dated 03/19, read in part, .If the level I screen indicates that the individual may meet the criteria for a mental disorder, intellectual disability or related condition he or she will be referred to the state PASARR representative for the Level II (evaluation and determination) screening process . Res #19 was admitted to the facility with diagnosis which included stroke and hypertension. Resident #19's PASSAR level I , dated 05/27/12, had no diagnosis of a serious mental illness. A physician's note, dated 09/22/15, documented that Res #19 had a serious mental illness of schizophrenia. On 02/07/24 at 11:30 a.m., the ADON stated there was no documentation for Res #19 determination and evaluation for PASRR level II of which included a diagnosis of schizophrenia.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0645 (Tag F0645)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the PASARR for a resident with a serious mental health diagnosis was filled out correctly and referred to the OHCA for two (#12 and ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the PASARR for a resident with a serious mental health diagnosis was filled out correctly and referred to the OHCA for two (#12 and #42) of four sampled residents reviewed for PASARR evaluations. The DON identified 35 residents with a serious mental health diagnosis. 1. Res #12 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses of PTSD and major depressive disorder. A PASARR level I report, dated 12/20/22, documented the resident did not have a serious mental illness. On 02/07/24 at 11:30 a.m., the MDS coordinator stated the PASARR had not been filled out correctly and had not been reported to the OHCA. 2. Res #42 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses of depression, bipolar disorder, psychotic disorder, and schizophrenia. A PASARR level I report contained no documentation that OHCA was notified of the mental health diagnoses. On 02/07/24 at 11:30 a.m., the MDS coordinator reported OHCA was not notified.
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 ensure a comprehensive care plan was developed for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) for one (#12) of one sampled resident who was revi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive care plan was developed for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) for one (#12) of one sampled resident who was reviewed for PTSD. The Administrator reported 52 residents resided in the facility. Findings: Res #12 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses of PTSD and major depressive disorder. A care plan, dated 12/23/23, contained no documentation the resident had a diagnosis of PTSD and did not include goals or interventions for PTSD. On 02/07/24 at 11:30 a.m., the MDS coordinator reported a care plan should have been developed for PTSD.
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 observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure pain medication was administered upon request for one (#51) of two sampled residents who were reviewed for pain manage...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure pain medication was administered upon request for one (#51) of two sampled residents who were reviewed for pain management. The administrator reported 52 residents resided in the facility. Findings: The facility's Administering Pain Medication policy, revised 10/2022, read in part, .Pain management is a multidisciplinary care process that includes .Recognizing the presence of pain .Conduct an abbreviated pain assessment .Administer pain medications as ordered . Res #51 had diagnoses which included chronic pain. A Pain care plan intervention, dated 09/21/23, documented to anticipate Res #51's need for pain relief and respond immediately to any complaint of pain. An assessment, dated 12/15/23, documented Res #51's cognition was intact, had experienced pain, received scheduled pain medication, and had been offered or received as needed pain medication in the five day look back period. Current physician's orders, dated 02/08/24, documented to administer Gabapentin 300 mg one capsule three times a day for chronic pain, Tramadol 50 mg one tablet three times a day related to chronic pain, ibuprofen 800 mg one tablet every eight hours as needed for pain, Tylenol 325 mg two tablets every four hours as needed for pain or fever, and/or apply Biofreeze external gel to affected areas topically every four hours as needed for pain. On 02/08/24 at 8:05 a.m., Res #51 was heard calling out from their room. On 02/08/24 at 8:06 a.m., Res #51 turned on the call light. CNA #1 answered the call light. On 02/08/24 at 8:09 a.m., CNA #1 stated Res #51 requested pain medication. On 02/08/24 at 8:17 a.m., CNA #1 stated they notified CMA #1 Res #51 requested pain medication. On 02/08/24 at 8:20 a.m., CMA #1 was observed passing medications on the South Hall. On 02/08/24 at 8:22 a.m., CMA #1 was observed entering room eight on the South Hall with medications. On 02/08/24 at 8:24 a.m. Res #51 stated they had requested pain medication for pain in their left leg. Res #51 stated they did not remember the last time they had been administered their pain medication. On 02/08/24 from 8:26 a.m. through 8:44 a.m., CMA #1 was observed on the South Hall as they administered medications. On 02/08/24 at 8:49 a.m., CMA #1 was observed preparing Res #51's medication. They stated Res #51 had an order for Gabapentin and Tramadol routine for pain that was scheduled for 8:00 a.m. On 02/08/24 at 8:49 a.m., CMA #1 was asked if they had been notified Res #51 had requested pain medication. They stated, Yes. CMA #1 stated if a resident asked for pain medication, they would finish what they were doing and then administer the pain medication. On 02/08/24 at 9:04 a.m., the DON was made aware Res #51 waited 40 minutes for pain medication after they had requested it. The DON stated the CMA should have completed the medication administration for the resident they were working on and then checked on Res #51 and administered the pain medication.
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 administer medication as ordered by the physician for one (#39) of seven residents reviewed for medication administration. The administrat...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to administer medication as ordered by the physician for one (#39) of seven residents reviewed for medication administration. The administrator reported 52 residents resided in the facility. Findings: The facility's Administering Medications policy, dated 04/2019, read in part, .Medications are administered in accordance with prescriber orders, including any required time frame .Medications are administered within one (1) hour of their prescribed time, unless otherwise specified . Res #39 had diagnoses which included cerebrovascular disease and pain. Physician's orders, dated 04/10/23, documented to apply Voltaren Gel 1 % two grams topically to the right shoulder and both knees four times a day for pain. A TAR, dated 01/01/24 through 01/30/24, documented Voltaren Gel was to be administered four times a day at 8:00 a.m., 12:00 p.m., 4:00 p.m., and 8:00 p.m. The TAR documented the Voltaren Gel had not been signed out as administered on 01/26/24 at 4:00 p.m. or on 01/30/24 at 12:00 p.m. Current physician's orders, dated 01/31/24, documented to apply Voltaren Gel 1 % two grams topically to the right shoulder and four grams topically to bilateral knees four times a day. On 02/06/24 at 9:58 a.m., Res #39 stated they did not get their Voltaren gel at the correct times. A TAR, dated 02/01/24 through 02/09/24, documented the Voltaren Gel had not been signed out as administered on 02/09/24 at 8:00 a.m. On 02/09/24 at 10:30 a.m., Res #39 stated their Voltaren gel had not been applied this morning and was due at 8:00 a.m. On 02/09/24 at 10:33 a.m., the ADON reviewed the TAR and stated Res #39 had not received their Voltaren gel. On 02/09/24 at 10:48 a.m., LPN #1 stated they had not administered Res #39's 8:00 a.m. dose of Voltaren gel.
Jan 2023 1 deficiency
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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure records accurately documented medication administered for one (#1) of three sampled residents reviewed for medications. The Residen...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure records accurately documented medication administered for one (#1) of three sampled residents reviewed for medications. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents report, dated 01/28/23, documented 51 residents resided in the facility. Findings: The facility's Discharge Medications policy, dated 12/2016, read in parts, .The charge nurse shall verify that the medications are labeled consistent with current physician orders .The nurse will reconcile pre-discharge medications with the resident's post-discharge medications . Resident #1 had diagnoses which included polyosteoarthritis. Pharmacy electronic prescriptions, dated 11/14/22, 12/12/22, and 01/10/23, documented to administer Resident #1 hydrocodone-acetaminophen tablet 10-325 mg two times a day for pain. These prescriptions were faxed from the pharmacy on 01/28/23. A MAR, dated 11/16/22 through 11/30/22, documented Resident #1 was administered hydrocodone-acetaminophen 7.5-325 mg 28 times. A Medication Review Report, dated 12/01/22, read in parts, .HYDROcodone-Acetaminophen Tablet 7.5-325 MG Give one tablet by mouth two times a day for Pain .I have approved these orders for [Resident #1] .Physician . The medication review report was signed by Resident #1's physician and by the DON. A MAR, dated 12/01/22 through 12/31/22, documented Resident #1 was administered hydrocodone-acetaminophen 7.5-325 mg twice a day. A Medication Review Report, dated 01/02/23, read in parts, .HYDROcodone-Acetaminophen Tablet 7.5-325 MG Give one tablet by mouth two times a day for Pain .I have approved these orders for [Resident #1] .Physician . The medication review report was signed by Resident #1's physician on 01/03/23 and by the ADON on 01/02/23. An Individual Patient's Narcotics Record, dated 11/16/22 through 01/17/23, documented Resident #1 was administered hydrocodone-acetaminophen 10-325 mg. A medication release, dated 01/17/23, documented Resident #1 was discharged with 66 hydrocodone-acetaminophen 10-325 mg tablets. the medication release was signed by Resident #1's DPOA. On 01/28/23 at 6:51 p.m., Resident #1's DPOA was asked the amount and dosage of the pain medications they had picked up for Resident #1. They stated they did not know. The DPOA stated they were in a bag and they signed a paper and left the facility with Resident #1's medications. On 01/28/23 at 6:55 p.m., the DON was shown the discrepancy in the hydrocodone-acetaminophen dosages. The DON stated they needed to call the pharmacy and see the actual script in order to determine if Resident #1 received the correct medication. On 01/28/23 at 8:21 p.m., the DON stated the medication summaries were reviewed by the DON or the ADON before they were seen by the physician. The DON stated the order for the hydrocodone-acetaminophen was put in the computer incorrectly by the MDS coordinator. The DON stated the MAR should have documented hydrocodone-acetaminophen 10-325 mg was administered. The DON stated the staff administered hydrocodone-acetaminophen 10 mg as ordered by the physician and signed the MAR which documented 7.5 mg was administered.
Jan 2023 7 deficiencies 2 IJ
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** On 01/11/23 at 10:20 a.m., the Oklahoma State Department of Health (OSDH) confirmed the existence of an immediate jeopardy relat...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** On 01/11/23 at 10:20 a.m., the Oklahoma State Department of Health (OSDH) confirmed the existence of an immediate jeopardy related to failing to send a resident who sustained a burn to the hospital. The facility failed to ensure the resident was provided emergency medical evaluation and/or treatment after the resident sustained a serious burn and failed to document assessment and monitoring of the injury. On 12/26/22 at 11:10 p.m. Resident #40 was found by staff with burns to their scalp, hair, face, bilateral ears, and left hand, while wearing oxygen. Resident #40 was not sent to the hospital for evaluation and/or treatment of the burns and was not assessed by the physician until 12/30/22 (Four days after the burn injury occurred.), There was no documentation of the degree, or size of the burns and no documentation of the residents lung sounds or oxygen saturation after the incident. On 01/11/23 at 10:47 a.m., the Administrator was informed of the existence of the immediate jeopardy. A request was made for an acceptable plan to remove the immediacy. On 01/11/23 at 3:36 p.m., the plan of removal was accepted by the OSDH. The plan of removal was as follows: Plan of Removal (3) 01/11/2023 1. Licensed nurses will be in-serviced on the policy regarding basic first aid, using nursing judgement for the need for emergency medical evaluation and treatment, and assessing a resident after a serious incident. This education will be completed on 01/11/23 by 6:00 pm by the Director of Nurses, Assistant Director of Nursing and/or Administrator. 2. PCP's and medical director for the facility will be in-serviced regarding evaluation of a resident with a serious injury within 24 hours of the occurrence. Should the resident require immediate evaluation, they will be sent to the emergency room. This education will be completed by 01/11/23 at 5:00 pm. 3. A record review will be completed on residents with serious injury in the last 3 months to ensure that a proper assessment was completed and documented by 01/11/23 at 6:00 pm. 4. Nursing documentation (to include vital signs, pulse oximetry and lung assessment if indicated) will be reviewed by the IDT team the following business day on serious injuries to ensure that appropriate care was provided. 5. All CNA's, CMA's Dietary, Housekeeping, Laundry, Maintenance Staff will be educated on procedure to follow in case of serious injury. Education will be provided by DON, ADON, Administrator, MDS RN and Social Services. 6. In case of employee on leave of absence or vacation, they will be educated before their next shift. On 01/12/23 from 8:15 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., interviews were conducted with staff regarding education and in-service information pertaining to the immediate jeopardy plan of removal. The staff stated they had been in-serviced and were able to verbalize understanding of the information provided in the in-service pertaining to the plan of removal. Random facility incident reports were reviewed to verify staff audits for resident assessment and treatment after an injury. On 01/12/23 at 11:23 a.m., the Administrator was notified the immediacy was lifted effective 01/11/23 at 5:00 p.m. and the deficiency remained at a level of harm with a limited number of residents affected. Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to assess, monitor, and intervene for a resident who sustained burns for one (#40) of two sampled residents reviewed for smoking. Resident #40 sustained multiple burns while smoking in their room. The Administrator identified two residents who smoked and had an order for oxygen and nine additional residents who smoked. Findings: The Change in a Resident's Condition or Status policy, revised February 2021, read in part, .Our facility promptly notifies .his or her attending physician, and the resident representative of changes in the resident's medical/mental condition and/or status .The nurse will notify the resident's attending physician or physician on call when there has been a/an .accident or incident involving the resident . Resident #40 had diagnoses which included dyspnea, vascular dementia, and heart failure. A Physician's Order, dated 12/14/22, documented O2 at 2L as needed for shortness of breath or decreased oxygen saturation. An annual resident assessment, dated 12/24/22, documented Resident #40's cognition was moderately impaired, independent with transfers and walking with walker, used tobacco and received oxygen. Resident #40's Care Plan, initiated 12/26/22, read in parts . [resident] has increased shortness of breath .O2 @ 2L/M via N/C RN .[Resident] smokes several times daily with supervision . An incident report dated 12/26/22 at 11:15 p.m., read in parts, .resident lying on floor, face down, by recliner .trying to locate where smoke smell was .observed brown material on the floor .hair was burnt, hair was falling out in melted clumps .superficial burn to right upper scalp, other burns observed .applying first aid .type of injury . burn .injury location .Top of scalp .left hand (palm) .Face .Right ear .Left ear . A Progress note dated 12/27/22 at 3:33 a.m., read in parts, .observed resident lying on the floor face down in front of recliner .smelled smoke .observed brown colored matter, on the floor around resident's head .realized that hair was burnt, and falling out in melted clumps .has what appears to be superficial burn on right upper scalp, blisters on 2,3,4,5, digits of left hand, burn mark from O2 tubing to right cheek, both ears burnt, O2 tubing was burnt an changed, contacted ADON who commented they would evaluate resident in morning .fax to PCP . No fax document found in the clinical record. There was no documentation found in Resident #40's clinical record of measurements, type of tissue, exudate or lung sounds. A Physician's Order dated 12/27/22 documented Silvadine cream to burns and to fingers with Keflex bid. A Progress note dated 12/27/22 at 10:47 a.m., read in parts, .Spoke to PCP new orders for Silvadine cream to be applied to burns .bid . A Skin Observation Tool dated 12/28/22, read in part, .Patient has new burns in place orders are in place. no other issues are noted. A Progress Note dated 12/30/22 documented the Medical Director/Attending Physician was in to see resident and that the resident continued with three pitting edema and shortness of breath with exertion with use of oxygen at nocturnal. There was not documentation from the physician of the description of the burns. Resident #40's Care Plan, .revised on: 01/01/23 .[resident] has actual impairment to skin integrity D/T BURN of the left hand and ears .Weekly skin assessments treatments documentation to include measurement of each area of skin injury type of tissue healing and exudate and any other notable changes or observations . A Skin Observation Tool dated 01/04/23, read in part, .wound care orders in place to burns on ears and hands. Facial burn healed . A physician note documented on a prescription pad, dated 01/10/23 with Resident #40 name on it, signed by the Medical Director, who was also the attending physician, documented, The nursing home called me just after pt getting burned- I saw this patient on [DATE]th Evaluated this pt. burn I also ordered [resident] Lasix & K. A Skin Observation Tool dated 01/11/23, read in part, .Right ear burn Left hand (palm) burn Left hand (back) burn .wound care orders in place . There was no documentation found of description, stage, or measurements of burns on the skin observation tools dated 12/28/22, 01/04/23, and 01/11/23, or in the clinical record. On 01/09/23 at 2:21 p.m., Resident #40 was asked if they smoked. The Resident's roommate stated the resident caught [their] hair on fire. Resident #40 was asked to explain. They stated once put the cigarette in my mouth then light the cigarette, then boom. I had oxygen on. The Resident was asked if they wore the oxygen when they smoke. They stated not normally. Resident #40 stated they were not suppose to smoke in the room. The Resident stated they caught their hair on fire and it had to be cut off. Resident #40 was asked why they were smoking in their room. They stated because they did not get to finish their cigarette when they were outside. Resident #40 stated they were not sent to the hospital after they were burned. Resident #40 was asked if they had any injuries other than their hair being burned. They stated, Yes. The resident stated they burned their left hand, right ear, and part of their scalp. Scabs were observed to the resident's right ear and bandage to left hand. On 01/09/23 at 4:10 p.m., CNA # 3 was asked about the incident with Resident #40. They stated while they were assisting another resident they heard the nurse asking Resident #40 if they had fallen. CNA #3 stated they asked CNA #2 to go check on Resident #40. CNA #3 stated they heard CNA #2 yell for assistance. CNA #3 stated by the time they were halfway down the hall, the ceiling light was on in the room and they could see smoke coming down the hallway. When they got there, there was so much smoke in the room they could hardly see. They stated the resident was face down on the floor with their coat, gloves and may have had her hat on but not sure. They stated there was something that looked like black coffee grounds on the floor. CNA #3 stated they touched the resident on the back of their head and realized it was the resident's hair on the floor. CNA #3 stated Resident #40 requested assistance to sit up. CNA #3 stated Resident #40 still had the O2 on their face and over their ears. They stated Resident #40 still had the cigarette in their hand. They stated the window and the outside door was opened to air out the smoke. CNA #3 stated they took the oxygen off of the resident and the resident had a red place on their right cheek, right ear, the side of the ear closest to the oxygen looked the worst. CNA #3 stated the resident's head was really red and hair was in clumps to their head on one side. They stated that through all that they did not know what to do. CNA #3 stated they were all upset because they were not sending the resident out. CNA #3 was asked why the resident was not sent out to the hospital. They stated they were told they would look at the resident in the morning to determine weather or not to send them out. CNA #3 further stated they heard the resident was not sent out because the resident did not show signs of pain. CNA #3 stated they all looked at each other and thought this was wrong and felt the resident should have gone to the hospital, and did not feel they could call 911 after having been told they will check on the resident in the morning. CNA #3 stated It bothered them that the nurse could not have say so to send a resident out to the hospital. They stated they heard a nurse sent a resident out before and got in trouble because administration felt the resident should have been monitored and not sent out. CNA #3 further stated it was procedure to call the DON, ADON, or the Administrator before they could send a resident out. They stated they have to monitor the resident for approximately three days before sending residents to the hospital. CNA #3 stated I have never left feeling like I did not do my job until that night. It was all just wrong. CNA #3 was asked what injuries were seen on Resident #40. They stated, the right ear, right cheek, left hand, scalp, and hair were burned. On 01/09/23 at 5:55 p.m., LPN #1 stated they found Resident #40 on the floor in their room and asked them what they were doing. They stated the resident said they were trying to get up. LPN #1 stated they saw what looked like dirt on the floor and smelled smoke. LPN #1 stated they got the resident up and saw their hair was burned. They stated they did not know the policy on that since the residents hair was coming out and wanted to send them out to the hospital. LPN #1 stated they called the DON, who did not answer, so they called the ADON and was told to apply Silvadine, clean the resident up, and to give them a shower. LPN #1 was asked if they asked the ADON if they could send the resident to the hospital. They stated, Yes. They told me just to wait. They stated that at the time the resident did not look that bad except their hair. They stated the resident's head was light pink and the worst part was the resident's left hand. LPN #1 was asked if they called the residents physician. They stated, No. They were asked why not. LPN #1 stated because of the order they got from the people over them and that,to me she wasn't that bad. LPN #1 was asked if the resident should have been sent to the hospital using their nursing judgement. They stated, Because of what happened, Yes, not because of the injuries. LPN #1 further stated if they had been at their old job where they knew the expectations then they would have sent the resident to the hospital. LPN #1 stated since they were new to the facility they did not know the procedures and since the injuries were not that bad, and the resident's lungs did not sound that bad, they wanted to send the resident because of what had happened and to make sure there was not anything that they did not see. LPN #1 was asked if Resident #40 complained of pain. They stated not that they remembered. On 01/09/23 at 6:07 p.m., CNA #2 stated LPN #1 found Resident #40 in the floor on 12/26/22 at approximately 11:15 p.m. CNA #2 stated LPN #1 called out for help. CNA #2 stated Resident #40's room was filled with smoke and smoke was seen in the hallway, Resident #40 was lying on the floor on their stomach. CNA #2 stated Resident #40 had brown residue on the oxygen nasal prongs. CNA #2 stated Resident #40 had burns on their ear, the skin was coming off, and the ear was really red. CNA #2 stated Resident #40's hair was burnt and had to be cut off. CNA #2 stated LPN #1 contacted the ADON by phone and asked if Resident #40 should be sent out. CNA #2 stated Resident #40 had not been sent to the hospital the night the burn had occurred. On 01/10/23 at 11:14 a.m., the Medical Director/Attending Physician was asked if they were notified of Resident #40's recent incident. They initially could not recall, but then stated the resident burned themselves smoking in their room and had burned their hair, face, and left hand. The Medical Director were asked when they were informed, They stated, I think so. They were asked when. They stated the same day. They were asked if they gave any orders. They stated, I think they used Silvadine. The Medical Director was asked if they gave the order for Silvadine. They stated, Yes, they used Silvadine. They were asked who they gave the orders to. They stated they did not remember and that they usually give orders to the nurse on call. The Medical Director/Attending Physician further stated they stopped in within the next couple of days and looked at the residents hand. They were asked if the appropriate treatment was provided to the resident at the time of the incident. They stated they thought so. They were asked if they gave orders to send the resident to the hospital. They stated, I don't think so. On 01/10/23 at 5:46 p.m., ADON stated they could not find the fax sent to the physician by LPN #1. On 01/10/23 at 4:47 p.m., wound care to resident #40's left hand was observed. The resident's left thumb had a deflated blister with no drainage present, the index finger had a deflated blister with no drainage, the middle finger had a deflated blister with clear drainage, the ring finger, both the top and underside, had a deflated blister with clear drainage, the pinky finger, both the top and underside, had a deflated blister with clear drainage, and the palm of resident #40's left hand had a small dark, dry spot. The resident stated their wounds were tender to touch. The right ear was observed scabbed and pink with no drainage. On 01/11/23 at 5:30 a.m., LPN #1 stated they had not had specific training on determine the severity of a burn. LPN #1 stated Resident #40's left hand was darker pink than the scalp, ears, and face, and had developed blisters by the morning. LPN #1 stated they had done neurological checks through the night because Resident #40 was found on the floor. LPN #1 was asked if they had assessed Resident #40's lung sounds, oxygen saturation, size, and degree of the burns. They stated they thought they did. There was no documentation of Resident #40's lung sounds, oxygen saturation, or description of burns. On 01/11/23 at 6:32 a.m., LPN #2 stated they were notified Resident #40 had caught themselves on fire smoking while wearing oxygen in their room. LPN #2 stated Resident #40 had big blisters on the left hand and the fingers were swollen and bubbled up. LPN #2 stated they notified the physician of the burn between 6:30 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. and received an order for Silvadine to be applied to the burns. LPN #2 stated they assessed Resident #40's burns, lung sounds, and pain. LPN #2 was asked if they had documented the assessment. They stated No. LPN #2 was asked if they would have sent Resident #40 out if the burn had occurred on their shift. They stated Yes, because Resident #40's head was burned. LPN #2 stated if Resident #40 had went out for treatment and or evaluation the hospital could have ensured they were doing the correct wound care for the burn.
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

A past noncompliance Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation was determined to exist effective 12/26/22 related to the facility's failure to ensure a resident who smoked was free from accident hazards. The ...

Read full inspector narrative →
A past noncompliance Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation was determined to exist effective 12/26/22 related to the facility's failure to ensure a resident who smoked was free from accident hazards. The facility failed to prevent a major injury while smoking with oxygen in use for resident #40. Resident #40 sustained burns to top of scalp, left hand, face, right and left ear. On 01/11/23,the Oklahoma State Department of Health verified the existence of the past noncompliance IJ related to the facility's failure to protect and prevent accident hazards related to smoking in the building while wearing oxygen. The past noncompliance IJ was removed effective 12/27/22 after the facility put measures in place to prevent recurrence. On 12/27/22 staff was in-serviced about the smoking policy, all residents who smoked were inserviced on the smoking policy and signed the policy, the smoking policy was observed along with the smoking times hanging in every room of a resident who smoked. The facility performed smoking evaluations on all residents who smoked on 12/27/22. On 01/09/23 at 4:04 p.m., residents were observed during smoking. The staff was observed to obtain the cigarettes and lighters from the nurses' station, each resident was handed one cigarette and the staff lit the cigarette for each resident. The staff stored the cigarettes and lighter at the nurses' station after the residents finished smoking. All residents were observed as they smoked. Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents did not smoke while wearing oxygen for one (#40) of two residents reviewed for accident hazards who smoked and had orders for oxygen. The Administrator identified two residents who had orders for oxygen and nine additional residents who smoked. Findings: Resident # 40 had diagnosis which included dyspnea, vascular dementia, and heart failure. A SMOKING POLICY AND PROCEDURE, revised 8-04-20, read in parts,This facility will comply with all federal, state, and local regulations regarding smoking in a long term care facility .Smoking or possessing a lighted tobacco product .is prohibited in the facility .The facility's tobacco use policy shall be clearly posted .resident or their legal representative shall be notified of the policy prior to admission .Residents must be accompanied by staff, family, or properly trained volunteers while smoking .Smoking materials will be kept in a designated are accessible only by staff .Smoking is prohibited in all areas of the facility except the designated smoking area . A Physician's Order, dated 12/14/22, documented to administer oxygen at two liters as needed for shortness of breath or decreased oxygen saturation. An annual resident assessment, dated 12/24/22, documented Resident #40's cognition was moderately impaired, was independent with transfers and walking with walker, used tobacco and received oxygen. A Care Plan initiated 12/26/22, read in parts . [resident] has increased shortness of breath .O2 @ 2L/M via N/C PRN SOB or decreased SaO2 every 1 hours as needed [Resident] smokes several times a day with supervision .Revision on 12/30/22 .Conduct safety evaluations on admission and PRN .DISCUSS WITH THE FAMILY THAT WHEN [RESIDENT] GOES OUT WITH THEM NOT TO GIVE [RESIDENT] ANY SMOKING MATERIALS TURN IN TO THE STAFF AT THE NURSES STATION .Educate Residents/Responsible Party on the facility's tobacco/smoking policy(s) .orient Resident to smoking times and procedures .Staff to extinguish cigarettes .Revision on 01/01/23[resident] has actual impairment to skin integrity D/T BURN of the left hand and ears .Weekly skin assessments treatments documentation to include measurement of each area of skin injury type of tissue healing and exudate and any other notable changes or observations . An incident report dated 12/26/22 at 11:15 p.m., read in parts, .resident lying on floor, face down, by recliner .trying to locate where smoke smell was .observed brown material on the floor .hair was burnt, hair was falling out in melted clumps .superficial burn to right upper scalp, other burns observed .applying first aid .type of injury . burn .injury location .Top of scalp .left hand (palm) .Face .Right ear .Left ear . A Progress note dated 12/27/22 at 3:33 a.m., read in parts, .observed resident lying on the floor face down in front of recliner .smelled smoke .observed brown colored matter, on the floor around resident's head .realized that hair was burnt, and falling out in melted clumps .has what appears to be superficial burn on right upper scalp, blisters on 2,3,4,5, digits of left hand, burn mark from O2 tubing to right cheek, both ears burnt, O2 tubing was burnt an changed, contacted ADON who commented they would evaluate resident in morning .fax to PCP . No fax document found in the clinical record. A smoking evaluation, dated 12/27/22, read in parts, Supervision will be required for all Residents during designated smoking times. This evaluation will be utilized for the Resident's smoking care plan on admission and as indicated .Poor vision or blindness .Balance problems while sitting or standing .Lethargic/falls asleep easily during tasks or activities .Burns skin, clothing, furniture or other .Unable to light a cigarette safely .Unable to hold a cigarette safely .Unable to extinguish a cigarette safely .Unable to use ashtray to extinguish a cigarette. (The above mentioned were areas marked yes on the evaluation.) The smoking evaluation did not address oxygen use while smoking. There were no other smoking evaluations found prior to 12/27/22. On 01/09/23 at 2:21 p.m., Resident #40 was asked if they smoked. The Resident's roommate stated the resident caught [their] hair on fire. Resident #40 was asked to explain. They stated once put the cigarette in my mouth then light the cigarette, then boom. I had oxygen on. The Resident stated they caught their hair on fire and had to get it cut. The Resident was asked if they normally smoked while wearing their oxygen. They stated not normally. Resident #40 stated they knew they were not suppose to smoke in the room. Resident #40 stated they were sitting in their recliner smoking when they caught on fire. The resident stated they had been smoking in their room because they had not finished their cigarette when they were outside. Resident #40 stated the staff were not aware they were smoking in their room. Resident #40 was asked how they got the cigarette and lighter. They stated, someone gave it to them and did not remember who. Resident #40 stated CNA #2 stated I was still lit up. The Resident was asked if they had any injuries other than their hair being burned. They stated, Yes. They stated burned their left hand, right ear, and part of their scalp. During the interview with resident #40, their right ear was observed to be scabbed and their left hand was bandaged. On 01/10/23 at 1:44 p.m., CMA #1 stated they had an in-service concerning the smoking policy after a resident had caught themselves on fire while smoking with oxygen on. CMA #1 stated the residents were not allowed to smoke unsupervised and all lighters and tobacco products were stored at the nurses' station. CMA #1 stated prior to in-service residents would go out and come back with smoking paraphernalia. CMA #1 stated the facility let all of the families and residents know the cigarettes and lighters would be stored at the nurses' station. CMA #1 was asked how the facility ensured the residents did not have cigarettes or lighters. They stated while providing care and throughout their shift they would check to see if they noticed any smoking materials in the rooms. On 01/10/23 at 1:54 p.m., the Administrator stated Resident #40 had been on a visit with family. The Administrator stated social services contacted Resident #40's family to discuss how Resident #40 had the cigarettes and lighter. The Administrator stated the family reported they had given the resident the cigarettes and lighter and failed to report it to the facility when the resident returned. The Administrator was asked what measures were put in place after Resident #40 had caught on fire. They stated social services, and the DON met with every resident who smoked on 12/27/22 and reviewed the smoking policy and asked the residents for the smoking materials. The residents agreed to follow the policy, signed the policy as acknowledgment, and gave the staff their smoking materials. They posted smoking policies and had an In-service with all staff on the smoking policy. The Administrator stated the social service had educated the family to ensure they disclosed the resident had been given smoking material and to give the facility the smoking material when the resident returned from a visit. They were notified to turn the cigarettes in with the nurse if they purchased cigarettes for the residents. The Administrator was asked if there were any extra precautions taken to ensure residents who were on oxygen did not have smoking materials in the room or were smoking. They stated when they went out for smoke breaks staff ensured the resident did not have their oxygen on. The Administrator stated they have residents who try to sneak and retain their cigarettes, and would not always disclose. They stated when there was cause or suspicion staff would ask them to allow them to look in their room and show them what was in their pockets. On 01/10/23 at 2:14 p.m., the DON stated that social services interviewed Resident #40's family. They stated all residents who smoked were educated by the DON, ADON, and social services about the smoking policy, smoking times, and they asked the resident's if they had any tobacco product with them. They stated two of the residents gave them what they had, no one else had any smoking materials at that time.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

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 medications were administered as ordered for one (#55) of th...

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 medications were administered as ordered for one (#55) of three sampled residents who were reviewed medication administration. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents report, dated 03/07/23, documented 50 residents resided in the facility. Findings: The Admissions From Other Healthcare Facilities policy, dated 03/2017, read in parts, .Residents from other health care facilities may be admitted upon receipt of appropriate documentation .The following information will be provided to the facility prior to or upon the resident's admission .Physician orders for immediate care . The admission Assessment and Follow Up: Role of the Nurse policy, dated 09/2012, read in parts, .Conduct an admission assessment .including .Current medications .Reconcile the list of medications from the medication history, admitting orders .and the summary from the previous institution .Contact the Attending Physician to communicate and review findings of the initial assessment and any other pertinent information and obtain admission orders that are based on these findings . Resident #55 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Rheumatoid Arthritis. The hospital record, dated 02/13/23, read in parts, .Medications To Continue .methoTREXate 2.5 mg tablet .5 mg, Oral, Weekly, Wednesday . The MAR, dated 02/01/23 through 02/28/23, documented Methotrexate 2.5 mg one tablet was administered on 02/15/23 and 02/22/23. The MAR, dated 03/01/23 through 03/07/23, documented Methotrexate 2.5 mg one tablet was administered on 03/01/23. On 03/07/23 at 1:13 p.m., Resident #55 was asked if they knew the dose of their Methotrexate. They stated no. Resident #55 stated their husband administered five Methotrexate pills to them every Wednesday. On 03/07/23 at 2:15 p.m., the DON stated when a resident was admitted from the hospital the discharge orders were considered the physician's orders and if there was a discrepancy they would call the physician. On 03/07/23 at 2:31 p.m., the ADON stated they transcribed the physician's orders for Resident #55 from the hospital discharge paperwork. The ADON stated they had not called the physician to clarify the correct dose of Methotrexate to administer. On 03/07/23 at 2:50 p.m., the ADON stated it looked like they had entered Methotrexate 2.5 mg in the computer instead of the 5 mg dose on the discharge paperwork. They stated the order had been put in the computer incorrectly. On 03/07/23 at 4:24 p.m., Resident #55's family member stated Resident #55 usually took five 2.5 mg tablets of Methotrexate to equal 12.5 mg every Wednesday.
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 record review, observation and interview, the facility failed to properly label and store food in accordance with professional standards for food safety. The DON identified 50 residents that...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, observation and interview, the facility failed to properly label and store food in accordance with professional standards for food safety. The DON identified 50 residents that received meals from the kitchen. Findings: The facility's Food and Receiving Storage policy, dated October 2017, read in parts, .All food stored in the refrigerator or freezer will be covered, labeled and dated (use by date) . On 1/10/23 at 10:56 a.m., during the brief initial tour of the kitchen, it was observed that multiple food items were found unlabeled and undated in the freezer. Food items that was observed in multiple bags included pizza crust, tilapia and biscuits. On 1/10/23 at 10:57 a.m., the Dietary Manager stated the unlabeled, undated food items stored in the freezer was pizza crust, tilapia, and biscuits. The Dietary Manager stated all food items stored in the freezer are supposed to be labeled and/or dated.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0883 (Tag F0883)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the pneumococcal vaccine was administered for one (#31) of five sampled residents reviewed for pneumococcal immunizations. The Resid...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the pneumococcal vaccine was administered for one (#31) of five sampled residents reviewed for pneumococcal immunizations. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents report, dated 01/06/23, documented 34 residents received the pneumococcal vaccine and 50 residents resided in the facility. Findings: The facility's Pneumococcal policy, dated 10/2019, read in part, .All residents will be offered pneumococcal vaccines to aid in preventing pneumonia/pneumococcal infections . A pneumonia vaccination consent form, dated 03/09/22 , documented Resident #31's representative consented for Resident #31 to receive the pneumococcal immunization. There was no documentation the pneumococcal immunization was administered. On 01/18/23 at 4:13 p.m., the MDS coordinator stated Resident #31 had a signed consent in their chart to receive the pneumococcal vaccination. The MDS coordinator stated they would check with the IP. On 01/18/23 at 4:41 p.m., the IP stated Resident #31 had been screened and had a signed consent to receive the pneumococcal vaccine. The IP stated the Pneumococcal vaccine had not been administered to Resident #31.
CONCERN (E)

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

Laboratory Services (Tag F0770)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure laboratory tests were obtained as ordered by the physician for one (#31) of five sampled residents reviewed for laboratory tests. Th...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure laboratory tests were obtained as ordered by the physician for one (#31) of five sampled residents reviewed for laboratory tests. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents report, dated 01/06/23, documented 50 residents resided in the facility. Findings: The facility's Lab and Diagnostic Test Results policy, dated 11/2018, read in parts, .The physician will identify and order .lab testing based on the resident's diagnostic and monitoring needs .The staff will process test requisitions and arrange for tests . Resident #31 had diagnoses which included benign prostatic hyperplasia with lower urinary tract symptoms, hyperlipidemia, heart failure, hypokalemia, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. A physician's orders, dated 07/06/22, documented to draw a CBC, CMP, Lipid profile, and a PSA (laboratory tests) every six months starting on 09/09/22. There was no laboratory results found in Resident #31's clinical record. On 01/18/23 at 2:34 p.m., the DON stated they could not find the laboratory results for the CBC, CMP, lipid profile, or PSA for Resident #31 that were ordered to be drawn 09/09/22.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0919 (Tag F0919)

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 ensure emergency call systems were functioning and/or ...

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 ensure emergency call systems were functioning and/or the call cords were long enough to be reached by the residents if they were lying on the floor in the shower in three of three shower rooms observed. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents report, dated 01/06/23, documented three residents were independent with bathing and 50 residents resided in the facility. Findings: The facility's Answering the Call Light policy, dated 03/2021, read in parts, .Be sure the call light .is functioning at all times .Report all defective call lights to the nurse supervisor promptly . On 01/19/23 at 8:22 a.m., the emergency call cord in the shower room on Ocean View Drive was observed. The emergency call cord did not reach the shower floor. On 01/19/23 at 8:24 a.m., the shower room on [NAME] Blvd was observed. The emergency call cord was pulled, the light outside the shower room did not light up. On 01/19/23 at 8:26 a.m., the shower room on Sunshine Avenue was observed with CNA #4. CNA #4 stated Resident # 41 was independent with showering and utilized the shower room without supervision. CNA #4 attempted to activate the emergency call system,by pulling the cord, the emergency call system light outside the shower room did not light up or sound. CNA #4 stated if a resident had a fall and was lying on the floor they would not be able to reach the call light because it was not long enough. On 01/19/23 at 832 a.m., CNA #4 observed the shower room on Ocean View Drive. CNA #4 stated the emergency call cord was not long enough to be reached if a resident was lying on the floor in the shower. CNA #4 stated Resident #46 was independent with showering and utilized the shower room on Ocean View Drive without supervision. On 01/19/23 at 834 a.m., the maintenance supervisor was informed of call lights not working. The maintenance supervisor pulled the cord hard in the shower room on Sunshine Avenue the light came on and sound was heard. The two surveyors attempted to activate the emergency call light, the call light would not activate. The maintenance supervisor was asked how often the call lights were checked to ensure they were working. The maintenance supervisor stated the facility did not perform emergency call light checks. The maintenance supervisor was made aware of the emergency call light in the shower room on [NAME] Blvd. On 01/19/23 at 8:50 a.m., Resident #41 stated they showered independently in the shower room on Sunshine Avenue. On 01/19/23 at 9:01 a.m., the DON and ADON observed the emergency call cords in the shower rooms on Sunshine Avenue and Ocean View Drive. The DON stated the emergency call cords were not long enough to be reached by a resident if they were lying on the floor. On 01/19/23 at 9:06 a.m., Resident #46 stated they showered independently in the shower room on Ocean View Drive. On 01/19/23 at 11:04 a.m., the maintenance supervisor stated the emergency call cord in the shower room on Ocean View Drive was three feet long and was three feet from the shower room floor and the emergency call cord in the shower room on Sunshine Avenue was three feet long and was four feet four inches from the shower room floor.
Dec 2022 1 deficiency
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure hand hygiene was performed during the provision of care for four (#4, 5, 7, and #8) of four sampled residents observed...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure hand hygiene was performed during the provision of care for four (#4, 5, 7, and #8) of four sampled residents observed during care. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents report, dated 12/19/22, documented 10 residents who were dependent for toileting and 49 residents who resided in the facility. Findings: The Perineal Care policy, dated 02/2018, read in parts, .Wash and dry your hands thoroughly .Put on gloves . The Laundry and Bedding, Soiled policy, dated 10/2018, read in parts, .Soiled laundry/bedding shall be handled, transported and processed according to best practices for infection prevention and control .Contaminated laundry is placed in a bag or container at the location where it is used and not sorted or rinsed at the location of use . The Handwashing/Hand Hygiene policy, dated 08/2019, read in parts, .This facility considers hand hygiene the primary means to prevent the spread of infections .All personnel shall follow handwashing/hand hygiene procedures .Use an alcohol-based hand rub .Before and after coming on duty .Before and after direct contact with residents .Before moving from a contaminated body site to clean body site during resident care .After contact with a resident's intact skin .After removing gloves .Hand hygiene is the final step after removing and disposing of personal protective equipment .The use of gloves does not replace hand washing/hand hygiene .Integration of glove use along with routine hand hygiene is recognized as the best practice for preventing healthcare-associated infections . On 12/19/22 at 4:58 a.m., CNA #1 was observed to provide incontinent care for Resident #4. CNA #1 did not wear gloves while providing incontinent care. CNA #1 was then observed to don a pair of gloves without performing hand hygiene. CNA #1 continued to provide care for Resident #4, removed their gloves, then donned another pair of gloves without performing hand hygiene. CNA #1 was observed to touch Resident #4's pillow and bed controls. On 12/19/22 at 5:05 a.m., a blanket and incontinent pad were observed on Resident #5's (Resident #4's roommate) fall mat on the floor. CNA #1 was observed to place an incontinent pad from Resident #4's bed on Resident #5's fall mat, on top of the blanket and the incontinent pad already on the floor. An incontinent wipe with a brown substance was observed on the floor by the trash can on Resident #5's side of the room. On 12/19/22 at 5:10 a.m., CNA #1 left the room and brought the barrel for soiled linens into Resident #4 and #5's room. On 12/19/22 at 5:24 a.m., CNA #2 was observed leaving Resident #6's room with a cloth pad soiled with urine in their gloved hands. CNA #2 placed the wet pad in the barrel containing soiled linen. CNA #2 did not perform hand hygiene when they removed their gloves. CNA #2 was then observed to place a stack of clean cloth pads on top of the linen barrel containing soiled linen. On 12/19/22 at 5:34 a.m., CNA #1 was observed providing care to Resident #8. A blanket and sheet were observed on the floor by the end of Resident #8's bed. CNA #1 was observed to touch Resident #8's pillow and call light without performing hand hygiene. CNA #1 donned gloves without performing hand hygiene, touched the privacy curtain between Resident #7 and Resident #8's side of the room, and then went to Resident #7's side of the room and touched the resident's bed and gown. On 12/19/22 at 5:48 a.m., CNA #1 and CNA #2 were observed changing Resident #3's bed linen. The bottom sheet and bed pads were observed to be wet with urine. CNA #2 placed the soiled sheet and pad on the floor. CNA #2 removed their gloves and touched Resident #3's call light, bedside table, and left the room without performing hand hygiene. On 12/19/22 at 5:55 a.m., CNA #2 was observed to close the cover on the linen cart in the hall, placed clean pads from the top of the linen cart inside the clean linen cart, and removed a gown from the top of the clean linen cart. CNA #2 was not observed to perform hand hygiene after they provided care to Resident #3 and before they touched the clean linen or the clean linen cart. On 12/19/22 at 6:01 a.m., CNA #1 was asked why they were not wearing gloves during incontinent care for Resident #4. CNA #1 stated they forgot to wear gloves. CNA #1 was asked why they had placed the dirty linens from Resident #4 on Resident #5's fall mat. They stated they missed the trash can so they put them in one spot on the floor. On 12/19/22 at 6:05 a.m., CNA #1 was asked why the linens from Resident #8's bed were on the floor. CNA #1 stated they fell off of the bed. CNA #1 was asked why they had not performed hand hygiene between providing care for Resident #7 and Resident #8. CNA #1 stated Resident #7 was sitting up and they did not want the resident to fall. CNA #1 was asked when hand hygiene was normally performed. CNA #1 stated while they were passing food trays, they used hand sanitizer or washed their hands in between trays. On 12/19/22 at 7:14 a.m., CNA #2 was asked how soiled linen was supposed to be transported. CNA #2 stated, In a plastic bag. CNA #2 was asked about the soiled linens on the floor in resident rooms. CNA #2 stated the soiled linens should not have been on the floor. CNA #2 reported they had not performed hand hygiene after they disposed of soiled linen from Resident #6's room and before touching clean pads. CNA #2 confirmed they had put the clean pads on top of the barrel containing dirty linens. CNA #2 was asked why they had not performed hand hygiene after caring for Resident #3 and before touching the clean linen cart and the clean cloth pads. CNA #2 stated they usually used the hand sanitizer across the hall from Resident #3's room, but must have failed to because they were on their way to the laundry room. On 12/19/22 at 4:16 p.m., the IP reported staff were supposed to perform hand hygiene before, after, and during the care of residents. The IP stated the soiled linen should not be placed on the floor and the soiled linen should be placed in a plastic bag before the staff leave the resident's room. The IP stated staff should perform hand hygiene after disposing of soiled linen, before touching clean linen, and the clean linen should not be placed on top of the barrel containing soiled linen.
Jun 2021 4 deficiencies
CONCERN (E)

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 interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to update and implement their abuse policy for two (#5 and #7) of two sampled residents who were reviewed for abuse. This h...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to update and implement their abuse policy for two (#5 and #7) of two sampled residents who were reviewed for abuse. This had the potential to affect all 54 residents who resided in the facility. Findings: A policy titled, Policy and Procedure on Prohibition of Abuse, Neglect, Personal Degradation or Misappropriation, dated 08/08/19, documented, .All allegations of abuse, neglect or misappropriation will be reported to the Administrator, D.O.N., Charge Nurse, family members, Oklahoma State Department of Health, and the Nurse Aide Registry .Reporting and Responding: .If a resident makes a report to a staff member that indicates any type of psychological or physical abuse, then the department head shall perform an internal investigation to determine if any type of abuse actually occurred .The administrator may take written statements while the investigation is underway to determine if abuse has occurred .An incident report shall be signed by the employee or department head and shall be signed immediately by the person in charge of the facility .The administrator, upon receiving the report, shall do an internal investigation .If the abuse is physical .If needed a report will be made per telephone or fax within twelve hours of incident and investigation and final report within five working days to the Oklahoma State Department of Health and Nurse Aide Registry .Upon report of any allegations or violations the Administrator or his/her designated representative will thoroughly investigate the situation in accordance with Oklahoma Law . 1. Resident #5 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses which included other sequelae following unspecified cerebrovascular disease, hypertension, insomnia, anxiety, depression, restlessness, and agitation. A quarterly assessment, dated 03/16/21, documented the resident's cognition was severely impaired, required extensive assistance with personal hygiene, toileting and dressing, limited assistance with bed mobility, transfers, and eating, utilized a walker and wheelchair for mobility, and received an antianxiety and diuretic medication seven days of the seven day look back period. A care plan, dated 06/15/21, documented, .Cognitive loss/dementia .has occ [occasional] confusion and anxiety her needs are requested and some anticipated by staff .Psychotropic drug use .has anxiety is occ [occasionally] tearful . 2. Resident #7 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses which included rheumatoid arthritis, depression, hypertension, and vascular dementia without behavioral disturbance. A quarterly assessment, dated 03/17/21, documented the resident's cognition was severely impaired, independent with most ADLs, required limited assistance with dressing, and received an antidepressant and opioid medication seven days of the seven day look back period. A care plan, dated 06/17/21, documented, .Cognitive loss/dementia .has occ [occasional] confusion and forgetful. Need redirection and reminders .Psychotropic drug use .no increased s/s [signs/symptoms] of depression . On 06/17/21 at 8:30 a.m., a resident informed the surveyor that a CNA had been rough with her roommate (resident #5) and cursed at her while trying to get her out of bed. She stated this had happened either last Friday or Monday. She stated the CNA had not treated resident #7 right either. She stated she had not reported this to staff. On 06/17/21 at 09:15 a.m., the administrator and director of nursing was made aware of the allegation. The administrator stated she would certainly investigate. An incident report was provided to the surveyors, dated 06/17/21. The incident report documented combined initial and final report. The form documented notifications had been made to the physician, family, and Adult Protective Services. The incident report included a summary of the investigation. It documented the allegation of abuse had been investigated by the grievance officer and were found to be non-substantial. A facility fax cover sheet and activity report dated 06/17/21, documented the incident report had been faxed to the Oklahoma State Department of Health at 2:33 p.m. On 06/22/21 at 2:59 p.m., the DON was asked who was responsible for investigating an allegation of abuse. She stated the grievance officer, the administrator, and the DON were responsible. She was asked what the timeframe was for reporting an allegation of abuse to the state agency. She stated now we know two hours. She was asked if the facility's policy indicated the timeframe to report an allegation of abuse to the state agency. She stated she did not see that in the policy. She stated the policy should probably state it should be reported within the required guidelines. She was asked who was responsible for updating the abuse policy. She stated she was responsible. She was asked if the allegation of abuse had been reported to the state agency within the required two hours. She stated no. The facility's abuse policy had not been updated to ensure an allegation of abuse would be reported to the proper authorities immediately and/or no later than two hours.
CONCERN (E)

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 interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to report to the appropriate authorities allegations of abuse in a timely manner for two (#5 and #7) of two sampled resident...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to report to the appropriate authorities allegations of abuse in a timely manner for two (#5 and #7) of two sampled residents who were reviewed for abuse. This had the potential to affect all 54 residents who resided in the facility. Findings: A policy titled, Policy and Procedure on Prohibition of Abuse, Neglect, Personal Degradation or Misappropriation, dated 08/08/19, documented, .All allegations of abuse, neglect or misappropriation will be reported to the Administrator, D.O.N., Charge Nurse, family members, Oklahoma State Department of Health, and the Nurse Aide Registry .Reporting and Responding .The administrator .shall do an internal investigation .If the abuse is physical .If needed a report will be made per telephone or fax within twelve hours of incident and investigation and final report within five working days to the Oklahoma State Department of Health and Nurse Aide Registry .Upon report of any allegations or violations the Administrator or his/her designated representative will thoroughly investigate the situation in accordance with Oklahoma Law . 1. Resident #5 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses which included other sequelae following unspecified cerebrovascular disease, hypertension, insomnia, anxiety, depression, restlessness, and agitation. A quarterly assessment, dated 03/16/21, documented the resident's cognition was severely impaired, required extensive assistance with personal hygiene, toileting and dressing, limited assistance with bed mobility, transfers, and eating, utilized a walker and wheelchair for mobility, and received an antianxiety and diuretic medication seven days of the seven day look back period. A care plan, dated 06/15/21, documented, .Cognitive loss/dementia .has occ [occasional] confusion and anxiety her needs are requested and some anticipated by staff .Psychotropic drug use .has anxiety is occ [occasionally] tearful . 2. Resident #7 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses which included rheumatoid arthritis, depression, hypertension, and vascular dementia without behavioral disturbance. A quarterly assessment, dated 03/17/21, documented the resident's cognition was severely impaired, independent with most ADLs (activities of daily living), required limited assistance with dressing, and received an antidepressant and opioid medication seven days of the seven day look back period. A care plan, dated 06/17/21, documented, .Cognitive loss/dementia .has occ [occasional] confusion and forgetful. Need redirection and reminders .Psychotropic drug use .no increased s/s [signs/symptoms] of depression . On 06/17/21 at 8:30 a.m., a resident informed the surveyor a CNA (certified nurse aide) had been rough with her roommate (resident #5) and cursed at her while trying to get her out of bed. She stated this had happened either last Friday or Monday. She stated the CNA had not treated resident #7 right either. She stated she had not reported this to staff. On 06/17/21 at 09:15 a.m., the administrator and director of nursing was made aware of the allegation. The administrator stated she would certainly investigate. An incident report was provided to the surveyors, dated 06/17/21. The incident report documented combined initial and final report. A facility fax cover sheet and activity report dated 06/17/21, documented the incident report had been faxed to the Oklahoma State Department of Health at 2:33 p.m. On 06/22/21 at 2:59 p.m., the DON was asked who was responsible for investigating an allegation of abuse. She stated the grievance officer, the administrator, and the DON were responsible. She was asked what the timeframe was for reporting an allegation of abuse to the state agency. She stated now we know two hours. She was asked if the policy indicated the timeframe to report an allegation of abuse to the state agency. She stated she did not see that in the policy. She stated the policy should probably state it would be reported within the required guidelines. She was asked who was responsible for updating the abuse policy. She stated she was responsible. She was asked if the allegation of abuse had been reported to the state agency within the required two hours. She stated no.
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 interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to complete a comprehensive care plan reflecting the status of the resident during the completion of the assessment and list...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to complete a comprehensive care plan reflecting the status of the resident during the completion of the assessment and list the possible side effects to monitor when psychoactive medications were administered for four (#3, #8, #25 and #29) of fourteen sampled residents whose care plans were reviewed. The facility census and condition identified 35 residents who received psychoactive medications. Findings: 1. Resident #3 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses which included decreased vision related to glaucoma and age-related macular degeneration, insomnia, major depressive disorder, chronic pain syndrome, and arthritis. The resident's care plan, dated 03/10/21, documented, .Category Problem .I am currently on Remeron for Depression and Restoril for Insomnia . Category Approach .Administer Remeron and Restoril per orders for Depression and sleep .Staff will monitor me daily for any adverse reactions to Restoril and Remeron . The care plan had not documented what the possible adverse reactions were for staff to monitor. Physician orders, dated June 2021, documented, .Restoril Cap(s) 15 MG Give one Cap PO at HS .Insomnia due to medical condition . .Remeron Tab(s) 15 MG Give Half Tab (=7.5 MG) PO at HS .Major depressive disorder, recurrent, unspecified . An annual assessment dated , 06/11/21, documented the resident was moderately impaired in cognition, required limited assistance with one person physical assist for bed mobility and most ADLs, and required a walker for mobility. The assessment documented the resident had been administered an antidepressant and hypnotic seven days of the seven day look back period. On 06/22/21 at 2:47 p.m., RN #1 was asked who was responsible for the resident care plans. She stated she was the MDS and care plan coordinator. She was asked how often care plans were updated. She stated quarterly and as needed, such as a change in orders. She was asked how she care planned psychoactive medications. She stated she care planned to monitor side effects of psychotropic medications, antidepressants and antianxiety medications. She was asked if the side effects were listed. She stated, Some of them are. She was asked why side effects were not listed. She stated, I don't know. She was asked if possible side effects for Remeron and Restoril should be listed on the care plan. She stated, Probably So. 2. Resident #8 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses which included Alzheimer's disease, insomnia, depression, anxiety, dementia, and delirium due to known physiological condition. A care plan, dated 03/18/21, documented, .Falls .I am at increased risk for falls due to taking .Ambien . Category Approach .Assess for s/sx [signs/symptoms] of adverse reactions to Ambien . Psychotropic drug use .I am currently on Risperidone and Trazodone per order for anxiety, Prozac per orders for depression and Ambien per orders for insomnia . Category Goal .Staff will monitor me daily for any adverse reactions to my medications . Category Approach .Staff will monitor me daily for any adverse reactions to Medications . The care plan had not included what adverse reactions the staff should be aware of when care was provided. The physician orders, dated June 2021, documented the following: .Risperdal .0.5 mg give one tab po QID .Delirium due to known physiological condition . Trazodone .50 mg give one tab po at HS .Insomnia . Prozac .20 mg give one cap po daily .Major depressive disorder . Review of the physician orders, dated June 2021, had not revealed documentation of a current physician order for Ambien. An annual assessment, dated 06/18/21, documented the resident was severely impaired in cognition, independent with most ADLs, required limited assistance with dressing, utilized a walker for mobility, had no behaviors, and received an antipsychotic, antidepressant, and diuretic seven days of the seven day look back period. On 06/22/21 at 2:50 p.m., RN #1 was asked who was responsible for the development and revision of care plans. She stated she was responsible. She was asked how often care plans were revised. She stated, quarterly unless there were changes requiring the care plan be revised such as new or changed physician orders or a significant change in the resident. She was asked what was included in the care plan for residents who received psychotropic medications. She stated monitoring for side effects of the medications. She was asked why the psychotropic medication side effects to monitor had not been listed on the care plan. She stated I don't know. She was asked if adverse reactions to psychotropic medications should be listed on the care plan. She stated Yes, probably. She was asked how often a physician medication order was updated on the care plan. She stated anytime there was a physician order for a new medication or change in medication, she would receive a copy of the order and the care plan would be updated. 3. Resident #25 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses which included dementia with behavioral disturbance and recurrent major depressive disorder. An annual assessment, dated 01/14/21, documented, the resident's cognition was severely impaired. The assessment documented the resident required staff assistance for all ADLs, utilized a wheelchair for mobility, and received scheduled pain medication. The assessment documented the resident had been administered an antianxiety, antidepressant and anticoagulant medication seven days of the seven day look back period. A resident's care plan, dated 01/14/2021, documented, .Category Problem .I am currently on Prozac for depression and Klonopin for Dementia . Category Goal .Staff will monitor me daily for any adverse reactions to Prozac and Klonopin . Category Approach .Staff will monitor me daily for any adverse reactions to Fluvoxamine and Klonopin . The care plan had not included side effects or adverse reactions staff should be aware of when care was provided. A physician order, dated June 2021, documented, Fluoxetine Hydrochloride (Prozac) cap 40 mg one cap PO daily AM. The resident's Klonopin and Fluvoxamine had been discontinued, but remained on the care plan. On 06/22/21 at 2:46 p.m., the MDS coordinator was asked who developed and updated care plans. She stated she did. She was asked how often care plans were updated. She stated, quarterly unless there was a new order, significant change or hospitalization. The MDS coordinator was asked how she care planned psychotropic medications. She stated she included the side effects and adverse reactions of the psychotropic, antianxiety, and antidepressants. She stated not all side effects or adverse reactions were listed, but probably should be. She stated she was probably not doing that consistently. 4. Resident #29 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses which included, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. An admission assessment, dated 04/19/21, documented, the resident's cognition was intact, required supervision with most ADLs, utilized a cane or walker for mobility, and received oxygen therapy. The assessment documented the resident had received an antidepressant and diuretic seven days of the seven day look back period. A care plan, dated 04/06/21, had not included a focus area for oxygen therapy, measurable goals, or interventions. A physician's order, dated June 2021, documented, Oxygen via N/C (nasal cannula) - Oxygen 2 LPM (liters per minute) via nasal cannula at HS (bedtime). On 06/22/21 at 2:45 p.m., the MDS coordinator was asked if oxygen use should be care planned. She stated, Yes.
CONCERN (E)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure oxygen tubing was changed in a timely manner to prevent cross contamination for one (#29) of two sam...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure oxygen tubing was changed in a timely manner to prevent cross contamination for one (#29) of two sampled residents whose oxygen tubing was observed. The facility reported 11 residents who received oxygen therapy. Findings: A facility policy titled, Policy & Procedures for Oxygen Tubing & Nebulizer Maintenance, dated 06/06/2017, documented, It is the policy of [name withheld] that oxygen tubing is changed weekly on Thursday and as needed for all residents using oxygen .All tubing is dated and initialed by the nurse changing the tubing. Resident #29 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses which included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. A care plan, dated 04/06/21, had not documented oxygen as a focus area with measurable goals, or interventions. An admission assessment, dated 04/19/21, documented the resident's cognition was intact, utilized a cane or walker for mobility, and received oxygen therapy. A physician order, dated June 2021, documented, Oxygen via N/C (nasal cannula) - Oxygen 2 LPM (liters per minute) vial nasal cannula @ (at) HS. On 06/14/21 at 2:34 p.m., the resident was observed laying in bed utilizing oxygen via nasal cannula. The tubing was dated 05/20/21. On 06/17/21 at 11:13 a.m., the resident's oxygen tubing was observed laying on her bed. The tubing was noted to be dated 05/20/21. The resident was asked how often the oxygen tubing was changed. She stated she did not know. On 06/22/21 at 3:01 p.m., the director of nursing was asked how often staff changed resident's oxygen tubing. She stated, Weekly on concentrators on Thursday. She was informed of the resident's oxygen tubing last changed and dated on 05/20/21.
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), $32,858 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.
  • • $32,858 in fines. Higher than 94% of Oklahoma facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
  • • Grade F (16/100). 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 Stroud Nursing & Rehab's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns STROUD NURSING & REHAB an overall rating of 3 out of 5 stars, which is considered average nationally. Within Oklahoma, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This mid-range rating indicates the facility meets federal standards but may have areas for improvement.

How is Stroud Nursing & Rehab Staffed?

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

What Have Inspectors Found at Stroud Nursing & Rehab?

State health inspectors documented 19 deficiencies at STROUD NURSING & REHAB during 2021 to 2025. 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 Stroud Nursing & Rehab?

STROUD NURSING & REHAB 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 58 certified beds and approximately 53 residents (about 91% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in STROUD, Oklahoma.

How Does Stroud Nursing & Rehab Compare to Other Oklahoma Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Oklahoma, STROUD NURSING & REHAB's overall rating (3 stars) is above the state average of 2.6 and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Stroud Nursing & Rehab?

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 Stroud Nursing & Rehab Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, STROUD NURSING & REHAB 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 3-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 Stroud Nursing & Rehab Stick Around?

STROUD NURSING & REHAB 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 Stroud Nursing & Rehab Ever Fined?

STROUD NURSING & REHAB has been fined $32,858 across 3 penalty actions. This is below the Oklahoma average of $33,407. 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 Stroud Nursing & Rehab on Any Federal Watch List?

STROUD NURSING & REHAB 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.