IGNITE MEDICAL RESORT TULSA, LLC

8720 SOUTH 101ST AVENUE, TULSA, OK 74133 (918) 965-0101
For profit - Limited Liability company 102 Beds IGNITE MEDICAL RESORTS Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
61/100
#59 of 282 in OK
Last Inspection: December 2024

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

Overview

Ignite Medical Resort Tulsa has a Trust Grade of C+, indicating it's slightly above average but not exceptional. It ranks #59 out of 282 facilities in Oklahoma, placing it in the top half, and #6 out of 33 in Tulsa County, meaning only five other local options are better. The facility is new, so there’s no trend data available yet, but it has a staffing rating of 2 out of 5 stars, with a turnover rate of 64%, which is average for Oklahoma. While the RN coverage is adequate, the facility has faced $16,772 in fines, which is concerning as it reflects potential compliance issues. Specific incidents include a critical finding where a resident did not receive the full course of an important medication due to a miscommunication, posing a serious risk of harm. Additionally, there were concerns about medication storage, where medications were left unsecured multiple times, and the improper maintenance of a catheter, which could lead to infections. Overall, while the facility has some strengths, such as a good health inspection rating, these deficiencies indicate areas that families should carefully consider.

Trust Score
C+
61/100
In Oklahoma
#59/282
Top 20%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Too New
0 → 4 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
64% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
⚠ Watch
$16,772 in fines. Higher than 97% of Oklahoma facilities. Major compliance failures.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 24 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Oklahoma. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
✓ Good
Only 4 deficiencies on record. Cleaner than most facilities. Minor issues only.
★★★★☆
4.0
Overall Rating
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Staff Levels
★★★☆☆
3.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
Stable
: 0 issues
2024: 4 issues

The Good

  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 64%

18pts above Oklahoma avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Federal Fines: $16,772

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

Chain: IGNITE MEDICAL RESORTS

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

Staff turnover is elevated (64%)

16 points above Oklahoma average of 48%

The Ugly 4 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening
Dec 2024 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure the catheter bag and tubing were maintained to prevent infection for one (#151) of one sampled resident who was review...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure the catheter bag and tubing were maintained to prevent infection for one (#151) of one sampled resident who was reviewed reviewed for indwelling urinary catheter. The roster matrix identified 12 residents who had indwelling urinary catheters. Findings: Resident #151 had diagnoses which included obstructive and reflux uropathy. The Care Plan, dated 12/10/24, read in part, Attach my catheter bag to bedside to drain and ensure it is closed drainage system and not touching the floor. On 12/10/24 at 8:54 a.m., Resident #151 was observed in bed with the catheter bag and tubing laying on the floor beside the bed. On 12/10/24 at 2:46 p.m., the resident's catheter bag was observed touching the floor. On 12/11/24 at 2:25 P.M., CNA #3 stated staff were to position the catheter bag on the side of the bed and not let it touch the floor. On 12/11/24 at 3:58 p.m., LPN #3 stated staff should place the catheter bag on the lower railing of the bed and were to keep the bag and tubing from touching the floor. On 12/11/24 at 4:26 p.m the DON stated catheter bags and tubing was to be kept off the floor.
CONCERN (D)

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

Menu Adequacy (Tag F0803)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to follow the menu as written for puree diets. The kitchen manager documented three residents had pureed diets. Findings: On 1...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to follow the menu as written for puree diets. The kitchen manager documented three residents had pureed diets. Findings: On 12/10/24 at 10:52 a.m., pureed food was observed being prepared by cook #1. The menu for the day consisted of sweet and sour chicken, stir fried vegetables, rice, and an egg roll. Chef #1 prepared the chicken and the vegetables for the puree. Pasta was substituted for the rice. The chef did not puree an egg roll for the residents who were ordered a puree diet. On 12/10/24 at 11:14 a.m., [NAME] #1 stated they did not usually add the egg roll or bread that was on the menu to the puree diets. They stated if there was a starch, a protein, and a vegetable, that was enough. [NAME] #1 stated they had never pureed bread for a meal. On 12/10/24 at 11:17 a.m., Chef #1 stated the puree diets were adequate if they contained a vegetable, a protein, and a starch. On 12/11/24 at 10:52 a.m., Dietician #1 stated the menu should not be altered without their consent. Dietician #1 stated everything on the menu contributed to the nutritional value of the meal, and should be the same no matter what the texture. They stated substitutions were allowed with consent by them, but nothing should be omitted from the menu.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure medications were securely stored on halls 200 and 300. The DON identified five medications carts in the facility. Find...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure medications were securely stored on halls 200 and 300. The DON identified five medications carts in the facility. Findings: The undated Medication Storage policy, read in part, All drugs and biologicals will be stored in locked compartments .During a medication pass, medications must be under the direct observation of the person administering medications or locked in the medication storage area/cart. On 12/09/24 at 4:06 p.m., LPN #1 on hall 300, walked into a resident room leaving the medication cart unlocked and unattended. On 12/09/24 at 4:07 p.m., LPN #1 returned to the medication cart, then walked into another resident room leaving the cart unlocked and unattended. On 12/09/24 at 4:08 p.m , LPN #1 returned to the medication cart and prepared medications. On 12/09/24 at 4:10 p.m., LPN #1 locked the medication cart and walked away. On 12/10/24 at 9:10 a.m., LPN #1 approached the medication cart picking up a clipboard then entered a resident room leaving the cart unlocked and unattended. On 12/10/24 at 9:11 a.m., LPN #1 locked the medication cart and walked away. On 12/11/24 at 2:00 p.m., the medication cart on hall 200 was observed to be unlocked and unattended. On 12/11/24 at 2:20 p.m., LPN #2 walked over to the cart and locked it. They stated the protocol was to keep the cart locked to ensure medication were secure. They stated they were not sure why it was not locked. On 12/11/24 at 3:40 p.m., the DON stated the medication carts must stay locked at all times.
Oct 2024 1 deficiency 1 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** A past noncompliance Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation was determined to exist effective [DATE], related to the facility's failu...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** A past noncompliance Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation was determined to exist effective [DATE], related to the facility's failure to ensure a nurse practitioner (NP #1) did not give a verbal order to a facility admission nurse (LPN #1) to reduce all enoxaparin (an anticoagulant medication) orders coming from acute care hospitals to a three-day course. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 received their full 30-day course of enoxaparin as ordered by an acute care hospital physician which had the potential to result in serious injury or harm. On [DATE], the Oklahoma State Department of Health verified the existence of the past noncompliance IJ related to the facility's failure to ensure physician medication orders were followed as written. The past noncompliance IJ was removed effective [DATE] after the facility put measures in place to prevent recurrence. On [DATE] NP #1 and LPN #1 were in-service about following hospital discharge orders from acute care hospitals until a facility provider assessed the resident and wrote new orders. On [DATE] the facility initiated monitoring of hospital discharge medication orders for current and new admissions. On [DATE] the facility's Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement Committee documented performance improvement measures regarding admission order oversite. On [DATE] staff were in-serviced on admission checklists and medication errors. An IJ was identified from [DATE] through [DATE]. Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a NP did not give a verbal order to decrease all enoxaparin orders from acute care hospitals to three days and failed to ensure a resident received their full course of enoxaparin as ordered by a physician for one (#1) of four sampled residents reviewed for medications administered as ordered. The QA nurse identified two current residents at the facility had been prescribed the anticoagulant medication enoxaparin. Findings: A facility policy titled admission Orders, dated [DATE], read in part, The orders should allow facility staff to provide essential care to the resident consistent with the resident's mental and physical status on admission. The policy further read in part, The orders should provide information to maintain or improve the resident's functional abilities until staff can conduct a comprehensive assessment and develop an interdisciplinary comprehensive care plan. Resident #1 had diagnoses which included a fracture of an unspecified part of the neck of the left femur, atrial fibrillation, and thrombophilia (a blood disorder where a person's blood is more likely to clot). An acute care hospital discharge planning note, dated [DATE] at 9:00 a.m., documented Resident #1's discharge medication list included enoxaparin 30 mg/0.3 ml injections to be administered once daily starting on [DATE] with a total of nine milliliters to have been administered during the full course of the medication (9 ml divided into daily doses of 0.3 ml equates to 30 days of injections). A facility medication order, dated [DATE] at 12:52 p.m., read in part, Enoxaparin Sodium Injection Solution Prefilled Syringe 30 MG/0.3 ML (Enoxaparin Sodium) Inject 30 mg subcutaneously one time a day for anticoagulation for 3 days CONFIRM ORDER WITH MD/NP, ORDER ONLY X 3 DAYS. A medication administration record, dated [DATE], read in part, Enoxaparin Sodium Injection Solution Prefilled Syringe 30 MG/0.3 ML (Enoxaparin Sodium) Inject 30 mg subcutaneously one time a day for anticoagulation for 3 days CONFIRM ORDER WITH MD/NP, ORDER ONLY X 3 DAYS. Start date [DATE] at 0700. The record documented LPN #2 administered a dose of the medication on [DATE] and LPN #3 administered one dose of the medication on [DATE] and another on [DATE]. The record had no other documentation of the resident having received additional doses. A nurses note created by LPN #2, dated [DATE] at 12:07 p.m., documented Resident #1 had been found in bed with their eyes open, right sided facial drooping, significant right sided weakness, and the inability to speak. The note further documented this was abnormal for the resident whose baseline had been alert and oriented with the ability to speak clearly and walk with the use of a walker. The note had an effective date of [DATE] at 8:30 a.m. An acute care hospital Emergency Department Encounter document, dated [DATE] at 10:29 a.m., documented Resident #1 had been seen in the emergency department with the chief complaint of cerebrovascular accident symptoms. The document noted the resident had presented in the emergency department with aphasia [loss of the ability to express or understand speech], right sided facial drooping, and right sided weakness. The document further noted the final diagnosis was acute cerebrovascular accident. A hospital Death Summary Note, dated [DATE] at 8:36 a.m., documented Resident #1 died at the hospital on [DATE] at 8:36 a.m. The resident's diagnoses at death were acute left MCA ischemic stroke (a stroke that caused damage to the left side of the brain], paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, essential hypertension, and metabolic encephalopathy. On [DATE] at 8:35 a.m., the DON stated when a new resident was admitted the discharge orders from the hospital were accepted as the admission orders and put into the EHR under the name of their house physician. They stated at the time Resident #1 was admitted they had physician #1 and physician #2 as the attending physicians. They stated physician #1 was their medical director and physician #2 did rounds routinely. On [DATE] at 9:52 a.m., the DON stated physician #2 had seen Resident #1 on [DATE]. On [DATE] at 10:12 a.m., LPN #3 stated they did recall caring for Resident #1. They stated the [DATE] TAR did indicate they had given two doses of enoxaparin injection to the resident. They stated they were unaware of the portion of the order that said to confirm the order with a physician or nurse practitioner regarding the order being for three days only. LPN #3 stated they would not have known about that part of the order because it would not have been visible on their computer screen. LPN #3 demonstrated by opening the EHR to the screen they use to note administration of medication and they pointed out the word More that was visible to the side of the medication order. They stated if the order narrative was very long the excess of the narrative would be hidden and a person would need to hover their cursor over the word More to see the rest of it. They stated Lovenox (enoxaparin's brand name) was not a medication that would cause them to look under the More link. On [DATE] at 11:41 a.m., NP #1 stated they had been off work from [DATE] through [DATE] around noon. They stated Resident #1 had left the facility before they had returned to work on [DATE]. On [DATE] at 12:05 p.m., Physician #1 stated they had not seen Resident #1 and physician #2 would have visited with them. They stated admission orders were often put in under their name, but they had never seen the enoxaparin order for Resident #1. They stated they had not signed that order and they would not have authorized it. They stated Resident #1 should have received the enoxaparin for 30 days and that was standard practice. They stated if that order was changed someone should have documented the reason why. They stated they were unaware of the order to reduce all enoxaparin to three days. On [DATE] at 12:10 p.m., NP #1 stated they had been off work when Resident #1 had been admitted . They stated the had never seen Resident #1 while they were a resident at the facility. They stated when a new admission came to the facility, they look over the discharge orders and discontinue enoxaparin after three days, then restart Eliquis (an oral anticoagulant medication) if they had been on it before. They stated they were required to do what their supervising physician wanted, and it was their understanding that was what they wanted. They stated their supervising physician worked in corporate and was not the facility medical director (physician #1). On [DATE] at 12:33 p.m., LPN #1 stated it was one of their jobs to enter admission orders into the residents' electronic health record. They stated the orders used for the admission orders where the discharge orders from the hospital from where the residents had come from. They were asked to look at the enoxaparin order for Resident #1, dated [DATE], and to calculate the number days the resident was to have been administered that medication. They departed the room to make the calculation. On [DATE] at 1:10 p.m., LPN #1 returned and stated the resident should have received that medication for 30 days. They were asked what was on the order. They stated three days. They stated they had entered the order for three days and the note to confirm the order with a physician or nurse practitioner because it was for three days. They stated it was changed to three days because NP #1 had given them a verbal order in the past to change all enoxaparin orders coming from hospitals to three days. They stated they did not have any documentation of the verbal order to change those orders to three days. They stated they understood enoxaparin was an anticoagulant. On [DATE] at 1:20 p.m., NP #1 stated they and LPN #1 had discussed reducing the enoxaparin orders down to three days, but LPN #1 was hesitant without consulting with a physician. They stated they told LPN #1 to go ahead and put in the reduced days for the enoxaparin orders because a physician would see the residents before that time was up and they could continue or change the medication. They stated the administration was currently aware of that order but was unsure if they were in the past. On [DATE] at 1:36 p.m., the DON stated they had become aware of the three-day verbal order from NP #1 after the incident with Resident #1 that occurred on [DATE]. On [DATE] at 1:54 p.m., LPN #1 stated they had been given the verbal order to reduce the enoxaparin days from NP #1 in [DATE]. They stated they have since stopped the practice after the DON told them to stop. On [DATE] at 2:30 p.m., Physician #2 stated they usually kept residents such as Resident #1 on enoxaparin for 30 days. They stated they did see the order for enoxaparin, but it did not register with them the order would not be for 30 days. They stated that medication should have been continued for a minimum of 14 days and up to 30 days. They stated they owned part of that mess as they had not seen the portion of the order to confirm the three days. On [DATE] at 5:37 p.m., the facility executive director stated NP #1 was not following policy and procedure when they gave the verbal order to reduce all enoxaparin orders to LPN #1. They stated the facility staff has taken positive steps to ensure such incident would not be repeated including hiring a full time QA nurse.
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?"
  • "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
  • "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: 1 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 4 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $16,772 in fines. Above average for Oklahoma. Some compliance problems on record.
  • • 64% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Bottom line: Mixed indicators with Trust Score of 61/100. Visit in person and ask pointed questions.

About This Facility

What is Ignite Medical Resort Tulsa, Llc's CMS Rating?

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

How is Ignite Medical Resort Tulsa, Llc Staffed?

CMS rates IGNITE MEDICAL RESORT TULSA, LLC's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 64%, which is 18 percentage points above the Oklahoma average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs.

What Have Inspectors Found at Ignite Medical Resort Tulsa, Llc?

State health inspectors documented 4 deficiencies at IGNITE MEDICAL RESORT TULSA, LLC during 2024. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 3 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 Ignite Medical Resort Tulsa, Llc?

IGNITE MEDICAL RESORT TULSA, LLC 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 IGNITE MEDICAL RESORTS, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 102 certified beds and approximately 98 residents (about 96% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in TULSA, Oklahoma.

How Does Ignite Medical Resort Tulsa, Llc Compare to Other Oklahoma Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Oklahoma, IGNITE MEDICAL RESORT TULSA, LLC's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 2.6, staff turnover (64%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Ignite Medical Resort Tulsa, Llc?

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?" "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "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 facility's high staff turnover rate, and the below-average staffing rating.

Is Ignite Medical Resort Tulsa, Llc Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, IGNITE MEDICAL RESORT TULSA, LLC has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 4-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Oklahoma. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Ignite Medical Resort Tulsa, Llc Stick Around?

Staff turnover at IGNITE MEDICAL RESORT TULSA, LLC is high. At 64%, the facility is 18 percentage points above the Oklahoma average of 46%. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?

Was Ignite Medical Resort Tulsa, Llc Ever Fined?

IGNITE MEDICAL RESORT TULSA, LLC has been fined $16,772 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Oklahoma average of $33,247. 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 Ignite Medical Resort Tulsa, Llc on Any Federal Watch List?

IGNITE MEDICAL RESORT TULSA, LLC 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.