Ambassador Manor Nursing Center
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Ambassador Manor Nursing Center has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about its overall care quality. It ranks #193 out of 282 facilities in Oklahoma, placing it in the bottom half of the state, and #27 out of 33 in Tulsa County, meaning only a few local options are worse. The facility's trend is worsening, with the number of issues increasing from 6 in 2024 to 7 in 2025, and it currently has 23 identified issues, including one critical concern related to unsafe vaping practices involving residents on supplemental oxygen. On a positive note, staffing is relatively strong, with a 4/5 star rating and a turnover rate of 50%, which is below the state average. However, there were concerns about inaccurate record-keeping and food safety practices, such as uncovered meal carts during transport, which could lead to contamination risk. Overall, while there are strengths in staffing, the facility has serious weaknesses that families should consider carefully.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Oklahoma
- #193/282
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 50% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Oklahoma facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ○ Average
- Each resident gets 35 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Oklahoma. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 23 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.
The Bad
Below Oklahoma average (2.6)
Significant quality concerns identified by CMS
Near Oklahoma avg (46%)
Higher turnover may affect care consistency
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 23 deficiencies on record
Jul 2025
3 deficiencies
1 IJ (1 affecting multiple)
CRITICAL
(K)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents
On 07/08/25, an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation was determined to exist related to the facility's failure to have a system in place to ensure residents were monitored for the safe use of electronic ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0925
(Tag F0925)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program for the abatement of flies for 1 (center) of 4 halls observed for pests. A facilit...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to maintain complete and accurate clinical records fortwo (#1 and #2) of three residents whose clinical records were reviewed for wound care d...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2025
4 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0602
(Tag F0602)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents' property was not misappropriated for 1 (#19) of 4 sampled residents reviewed for abuse.
The administrator reported the fa...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to report an allegation of misappropriation of property to local law enforcement and the OSDH for 1 (#19) of 4 sampled residents reviewed for ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Investigate Abuse
(Tag F0610)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to thoroughly investigate an allegation of misappropriation of residents' property for 1 (#19) of 4 sampled residents reviewed for abuse.
The ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure medications were secured for 1 of 2 medication carts on the South hall.
The administrator identified 139 residents resided in the fac...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2024
2 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Tube Feeding
(Tag F0693)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure an enteral tube feeding bag was properly labeled for one (#37) of one sampled resident reviewed for tube feeding manag...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure dishes were air dried.
The dietary manager identified 32 residents ate meals in their rooms.
Findings:
On 10/21/24 at 11:48 a.m., CNA...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2024
1 deficiency
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
Investigate Abuse
(Tag F0610)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to prevent abuse for one (#5) of three residents who were sampled for abuse.
The administrator identified 125 resident resided in the facilit...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2024
3 deficiencies
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
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure nephrostomy care was provided as ordered for 1 (#1) of one resident reviewed for nephrostomy care.
The administrator re...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a prescribed medication was available for administration for one (#2) of three residents reviewed for medication administration.
The...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure resident records were accurate for one (#1) of thirteen residents whose records were reviewed.
The administrator report...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2023
2 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0569
(Tag F0569)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a Medicaid recipient was notified in writing when the resident's trust account was within $200 of the resouce limit for one (#28) of...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0800
(Tag F0800)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to cover food carts while being transported from the kitchen across the facility to prevent foreign contamination.
The DON ident...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 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 observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to maintain complete and accurate documentation of the meal percentage ingested for two (#2 and #4) of four residents whose clin...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 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
Deficiency F0725
(Tag F0725)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide sufficient staff to care for the needs of the residents.
The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents, dated 03/22/23, documente...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2021
6 deficiencies
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0625
(Tag F0625)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to provide a written copy of the bed hold policy on ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide care and treatments to meet the needs of two (#40 and #257) of 27 residents reviewed for quality of care.
The facility failed to:
...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0698
(Tag F0698)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to assess the fistula site upon return to the facility after dialysis treatment for one (#73) of one resident reviewed for dialy...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Staffing Information
(Tag F0732)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to post the nursing staff assigned to each hall in a prominent place readily accessible to residents on three of three halls in the facility.
T...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services to ensure correct administration of insulin for one (#57) of 4 sampled resi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to remove expired medication before administration for o...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Oklahoma facilities.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 23 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • Grade F (28/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Ambassador Manor Nursing Center's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns Ambassador Manor Nursing Center an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much below average nationally. Within Oklahoma, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.
How is Ambassador Manor Nursing Center Staffed?
CMS rates Ambassador Manor Nursing Center's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 50%, compared to the Oklahoma average of 46%.
What Have Inspectors Found at Ambassador Manor Nursing Center?
State health inspectors documented 23 deficiencies at Ambassador Manor Nursing Center during 2021 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 22 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 Ambassador Manor Nursing Center?
Ambassador Manor Nursing Center is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by BRIDGES HEALTH, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 171 certified beds and approximately 131 residents (about 77% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
How Does Ambassador Manor Nursing Center Compare to Other Oklahoma Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Oklahoma, Ambassador Manor Nursing Center's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.6, staff turnover (50%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Ambassador Manor Nursing Center?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations.
Is Ambassador Manor Nursing Center Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, Ambassador Manor Nursing Center has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 1-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Oklahoma. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.
Do Nurses at Ambassador Manor Nursing Center Stick Around?
Ambassador Manor Nursing Center has a staff turnover rate of 50%, which is about average for Oklahoma nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.
Was Ambassador Manor Nursing Center Ever Fined?
Ambassador Manor Nursing Center has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.
Is Ambassador Manor Nursing Center on Any Federal Watch List?
Ambassador Manor Nursing Center 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.