TUTTLE CARE CENTER

104 SOUTHEAST 4TH STREET, TUTTLE, OK 73089 (405) 381-3363
For profit - Limited Liability company 52 Beds SOUTHWEST LTC Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
65/100
#80 of 282 in OK
Share this report: Email Text Facebook WhatsApp
Last Inspection: May 2025

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

Overview

Tuttle Care Center has a Trust Grade of C+, indicating it is slightly above average but not outstanding. It ranks #80 out of 282 nursing homes in Oklahoma, placing it in the top half of facilities statewide, and #2 out of 5 in Grady County, suggesting only one local option is better. The facility's trend is stable, with four issues noted in both 2024 and 2025. Staffing is a concern, with a rating of 2 out of 5 stars and a high turnover rate of 72%, which is significantly above the state average of 55%. On a positive note, there have been no fines issued, indicating compliance with regulations. However, there are some serious weaknesses. One incident involved a failure to implement a physician's recommendation to reduce a resident's antidepressant medication, which could lead to potential harm. Additionally, another resident's care plan did not address their anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder, which is critical for proper care. Lastly, the facility failed to provide necessary forms to residents receiving skilled services, which could impact their rights and benefits. While there are strengths in overall quality ratings, these issues highlight areas needing improvement for resident safety and care.

Trust Score
C+
65/100
In Oklahoma
#80/282
Top 28%
Safety Record
Low Risk
No red flags
Inspections
Holding Steady
4 → 4 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
72% turnover. Very high, 24 points above average. Constant new faces learning your loved one's needs.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Oklahoma facilities.
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
13 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★★☆
4.0
Overall Rating
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Staff Levels
★★★☆☆
3.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
↔
Stable
2024: 4 issues
2025: 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: 72%

25pts above Oklahoma avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Chain: SOUTHWEST LTC

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

Staff turnover is very high (72%)

24 points above Oklahoma average of 48%

The Ugly 13 deficiencies on record

May 2025 4 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

MDS Data Transmission (Tag F0640)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident's discharge assessment was encoded and transmitted for 1 (#11) of 12 sampled residents whose assessments were reviewed. T...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident's discharge assessment was encoded and transmitted for 1 (#11) of 12 sampled residents whose assessments were reviewed. The administrator identified 44 residents resided in the facility. Findings: A Physician Discharge Summary, dated 12/30/24, showed Resident #11 had diagnoses which included dementia and bipolar disorder. A nursing note, dated 12/30/24 at 11:49 a.m., read in part, resident out of facility at 11:30 via stretcher, discharge paperwork given to transport and poa [power of attorney]. A Physician Discharge Summary, dated 12/30/24 at 1:43 p.m., showed the resident was discharged on 12/30/24 to another facility. There was no documentation a discharge resident assessment was completed. On 05/28/25 at 11:13 a.m., MDS coordinator #1 stated they did their discharge assessments on the day the resident discharged . On 05/28/25 at 11:15 a.m., MDS coordinator #1 stated Resident #11 discharged to another facility on 12/30/24. On 05/28/25 at 11:17 a.m., MDS coordinator #1 stated they did not complete a discharge resident assessment. They stated it should have been completed.
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 administer a pneumococcal vaccine as ordered for 1 (#43) of 5 sampled residents reviewed for immunizations. The administrator identified 44...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to administer a pneumococcal vaccine as ordered for 1 (#43) of 5 sampled residents reviewed for immunizations. The administrator identified 44 residents resided in the facility. Findings: An undated facility policy titled Pneumococcal Vaccine, read in part, All residents will be offered pneumococcal vaccines to aid in preventing pneumonia/pneumococcal infections. An admission record, with an initial admit date of 01/10/25, showed Resident #43 had diagnoses which included asthma and protein calorie malnutrition. A Pneumococcal Vaccine Consent Form, dated 02/18/25, showed the resident's representative gave consent for the pneumococcal vaccine. Resident #43's quarterly resident assessment, dated 04/17/25, showed the resident had severe cognitive impairment with a brief interview for mental status score of 5. A physician's order, dated 04/24/25, showed pneumovax 23 (pneumococcal vaccine) injectable 25 microgram/0.5 ml, inject 0.5 ml intramuscularly one time only for prevention for one day. An order administration note, dated 04/24/25 at 9:59 p.m., showed awaiting medication. A nursing medication administration record, dated 04/24/25 at 9:59 p.m., showed HD for the pneumovax 23 vaccine. There was no documentation the vaccine was administered. On 05/29/25 at 1:45 p.m., LPN #1 stated if a treatment was not available in the facility, they would put it on hold, notify the provider, call the pharmacy and document in the notes. On 05/29/25 at 1:51 p.m., LPN #1 stated the HD on the administration record probably meant hold. They stated the vaccine was not administered. On 05/30/25 at 9:14 a.m., the DON stated the resident had not received a pneumococcal vaccine.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0605 (Tag F0605)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a physician's response to a gradual dose reduction was implemented for 1 (#18) of 5 sampled residents reviewed for unnecessary medic...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a physician's response to a gradual dose reduction was implemented for 1 (#18) of 5 sampled residents reviewed for unnecessary medication. The administrator identified 44 residents resided in the facility. Findings: A physician's order, dated 01/20/23, showed sertraline hydrochloric acid (Zoloft) (an antidepressant) 100 mg, give one tablet by mouth one time a day for depression. A Consultant Pharmacist/Physician Communication form, dated 08/26/24, showed a pharmacist gradual dose reduction recommendation for sertraline (Zoloft) 100 mg daily. The communication form showed a physician's response dated 09/09/24, to reduce Zoloft to 75 mg by mouth daily. There was no documentation Zoloft was reduced to 75 mg daily. On 05/30/25 at 11:45 a.m., the DON stated if a physician decreased a medication dose on a gradual dose reduction recommendation, they would write the order and scan to the resident's chart. On 05/30/25 at 11:46 a.m., the DON stated they would implement the changes the same day or the next day. On 05/30/25 at 11:48 a.m., the DON stated the physician's response to decrease the Zoloft on 09/09/24 was not implemented. They stated Resident #18 continued to receive Zoloft 100 mg daily.
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

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a care plan was developed to address anxiety and post trauma...

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 a care plan was developed to address anxiety and post traumatic stress disorder for 1 (#44) of 1 sampled resident's care plan reviewed for serious mental health diagnosis. The administrator identified 44 residents resided in the facility. Findings: Resident #44's admission MDS assessment, with an ARD of 03/19/25, showed they had psychatric disorders of anxiety and post traumatic stress disorder. Resident #44's care plan, initiated on 03/27/25, did not address the diagnoses of anxiety and post traumatic stress disorder. Resident #44's admission Record, dated 04/29/25, showed they were admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of anxiety and post traumatic stress disorder. On 05/29/25 at 10:20 a.m., MDS coordinator #1 stated the care plan addressed depression, but did not address anxiety and post traumatic stress disorder. MDS Coordinator #1 stated the care plan should be developed to address the diagnosis so staff were aware of their current condition.
Oct 2024 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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents were allowed to exercise their right to smoke regardless of diagnoses for two (#1 and #2) of three sampled r...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents were allowed to exercise their right to smoke regardless of diagnoses for two (#1 and #2) of three sampled residents reviewed for resident rights. The DON identified 43 residents resided in the facility. Eight residents smoked. Findings: A facility COVID-19 policy, revised 05/01/24, did not document residents with COVID-19 would be prohibited from smoking. Alternative means to ensure residents with COVID-19 were allowed to smoke were not addressed in the policy. A facility training report, dated 09/23/24, documented a subject of COVID SMOKING. 1. Res #1 had diagnoses which included COPD. A Smoking Policy - Residents, dated 06/07/24, signed by Res #1, did not document residents with COVID-19 were prohibited from smoking. A progress note, dated 09/26/24 at 5:08 a.m., documented Res #1 had tested positive for COVID-19. A progress note, dated 09/27/24 at 10:20 a.m., documented Res #1 was upset because they were not allowed to go outside to smoke. A progress note, dated 10/01/24 at 6:10 p.m., documented Res #1 was upset and had behaviors related to smoking restrictions placed on them due to being diagnosed as COVID-19 positive. On 10/17/24 at 11:05 a.m., LPN #1 stated the staff did not let the COVID-19 positive residents smoke. On 10/17/24 at 12:28 p.m., the administrator stated Res #1 was refusing to abide by masking regulations within the facility which was why their smoking privileges were revoked. On 10/17/24 at 1:24 p.m., LPN #2 stated residents diagnosed with COVID-19 were not allowed to go outside and smoke and were instead offered a nicotine patch. On 10/17/24 at 1:30 p.m., the administrator stated the COVID-19 positive residents were not allowed to go outside to smoke. They stated there was an inservice on the new policy and they would provide the documentation of when that went into effect. On 10/17/24 at 2:24 p.m., the administrator stated they were unable to locate the policy with the changes regarding smoking restrictions for COVID-19 positive residents, but the training report was provided was regarding the change. 2. Res #2 had diagnoses which included COPD. A Smoking Policy - Residents, dated 06/07/24, signed by Res #2, did not document residents with COVID-19 were prohibited from smoking. A progress note, dated 09/30/24 at 10:39 a.m., documented Res #2 had tested positive for COVID-19. On 10/17/24 at 1:39 p.m., Res #2 was observed reading in their bed in their room. They stated the facility did not allow them to smoke when they were COVID-19 positive. They stated the reason was not explained to them and it didn't make sense to them at the time. They stated they dealt with it during that time and were allowed to smoke once off of quarantine.
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 F0661 (Tag F0661)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to complete discharge summaries for two (#1 and #4) of two sampled residents reviewed for discharge. The DON identified three residents disch...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to complete discharge summaries for two (#1 and #4) of two sampled residents reviewed for discharge. The DON identified three residents discharged from the facility within the last 30 days. Findings: 1. Res #1 discharged from the facility on 10/02/24. A record review documented no discharge summary had been completed. 2. Res #4 discharged from the facility on 09/05/24. A record review documented no discharge summary had been completed. On 10/17/24 at 1:11 p.m., the MDS coordinator stated the nurses on the floor at the time of discharge complete the discharge summaries. On 10/17/24 at 1:24 p.m., LPN #2 stated discharge summaries were documented under the forms tab of the EHR. They reviewed the charts for Res #1 and Res #4 and stated they had not been completed.
Jul 2024 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

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to prevent physical abuse for one (#1) of six sampled re...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to prevent physical abuse for one (#1) of six sampled residents reviewed for abuse allegations. The administrator identified 45 residents resided in the facility. Findings: A quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], documented Res #1 was cognitively intact, and was dependent on staff for most ADLs. An undated witness statement, documented CMA #1 had noticed a bruise on Resident #1's right hand and wrist. Resident #1 reported that CNA #1 pushed all their weight on their hand that was holding the bed rail, thereby smashing Resident #1's hand between the wall and handrail. CMA #1 heard Resident #1 tell CNA #1 they wanted someone else to feed them. CMA #1 stated when they went back to Resident #1's room approximately 15 minutes later, CNA #1 was still feeding Resident #1 even though they were saying please stop feeding me, I don't want anymore. CMA #1 reported they left the room. A witness statement, dated 07/11/24, documented that Resident #1 reported to CNA #4 that CNA #1 told them they would kill them. On 07/23/24 at 12:33 p.m., Resident #1 was observed in their bed. They were very hard to understand and mumbled quietly. When Resident #1 was asked about their hand, they put it up in the air and moved in back and forth to look at it but did not respond. On 07/23/24 at 1:44 p.m., the Administrator reported that CNA #1 was agency and the incident was reported to the agency, OSDH, and the police department. CNA #1 was put on the Do Not Return list. On 07/23/24 at 2:00 p.m., the Administrator reported that CNA #1 was not removed from the building during the shift because they were not notified of the incident until the next morning.
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 ensure an allegation of abuse was reported within 2 hours to OSDH for one (#1) of six sampled residents reviewed for allegations of abuse. ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure an allegation of abuse was reported within 2 hours to OSDH for one (#1) of six sampled residents reviewed for allegations of abuse. The administrator identified 45 residents resided in the facility. Findings: A witness statement, dated 07/11/24, documented that Resident #1 reported to CNA #4 that CNA #1 told them they would kill them. An incident report was filed with OSDH on 07/12/24 at 3:10 p.m., the incident date was documented as 07/10/24. On 07/23/24 at 2:00 p.m., the Administrator reported they were not notified of the incident until the next morning. The staff completed Abuse training in June. Abuse training was provided again on July 12th in response to this incident.
Feb 2023 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0578 (Tag F0578)

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 offer the choice to formulate an advance directive for one (#40) of...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to offer the choice to formulate an advance directive for one (#40) of 14 sampled residents reviewed for advanced directives. The Residents Census and Conditions of Residents reports documented 39 residents resided in the facility and 14 residents had advanced directives. Findings: Res #40 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. There was no documentation the resident was offered the choice to formulate an advanced directive. On 02/15/23 at 3:11 p.m., the DON reported the resident's parents were her power of attorney and they had not returned the paperwork. On 02/15/23 at 3:15 p.m., the administrator reported since they had not received power of attorney paperwork they had the resident sign her admission paperwork including the advanced directive acknowledgement. The administrator provided the resident's admission packet. On 02/15/23 at 3:40 p.m., the resident's admission packet was reviewed, the resident's advanced directive acknowledgement was not signed.
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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observation, and interview, it was determined the facility failed to provide baths/showers as scheduled ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observation, and interview, it was determined the facility failed to provide baths/showers as scheduled for one (#17) of two sampled residents. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented 39 residents resided in the facility. Findings: Res #17 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of hypertension, diabetes mellitus, hallucinations, and cellulitis. A care plan, dated 01/27/23, documented the resident required limited assistance of one staff with showering at least two times weekly and as necessary. A bath/shower log documented the resident had received two showers, 02/01/23 and 02/10/23, since admission. On 02/15/23 at 1:00 p.m., the DON was asked if the resident's showers were charted on the bath/shower log. The DON reported showers and refusals are supposed to be charted on the log. The DON reported if the resident refused, the CNAs turn in paper shower forms. There were no shower forms provided.
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review, observation, and interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure oxygen was administered only when ordered by a physician for one (#40) of one sampled resident revie...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, observation, and interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure oxygen was administered only when ordered by a physician for one (#40) of one sampled resident reviewed for respiratory services. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented 10 residents received respiratory treatment. Findings: Res #40 had diagnoses which included heart failure, anemia, schizophrenia, and hypertension. On 02/15/23 at 8:43 a.m., the resident was observed sitting up on the side of the bed with oxygen on via nasal cannula. The oxygen concentrator was set at 3.5 l/m. There was no documentation the resident had a physician's order to receive oxygen. On 02/15/23 at 2:45 p.m., the DON was asked if the resident had an order for oxygen. The DON replied she would have to check. On 02/15/23 at 3:13 p.m., the DON reported the resident had oxygen at home. The DON reported the resident was placed on oxygen and the doctor should be in the facility today and decide if the resident needed it for medical reason or comfort reasons.
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, observation, and interview, the facility failed to administer medications as ordered for one (#7) of five residents sampled for medication administration. The Resident Census a...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to administer medications as ordered for one (#7) of five residents sampled for medication administration. The Resident Census and Conditions of Resident report documented 39 residents resided in the facility. Findings: An Administering Medications policy, revised December 2012, documented medications must be administered within one hour of their prescribed time. Res #7 had diagnoses which included chronic atrial fibrillation, heart failure, hypertension, and acute pulmonary edema. A physician order, dated 10/06/20, documented to administer furosemide (diuretic medication) 40 mg daily for heart failure. A care plan, dated 12/01/20, documented to administer the anticoagulant as ordered by the physician at the same time daily. The care plan documented to administer diuretic medications as ordered by physician. A physician order, dated 02/25/21, documented to administer apixaban (anticoagulant medication) 2.5 mg twice daily for clot prevention. A Medication Administration Audit Report, dated 02/01/22-02/28/22, documented furosemide was administered past the one hour scheduled time frame for 10 administrations. Apixaban was administered past the one hour scheduled time frame for 16 administrations. A Medication Administration Audit Report, dated 04/01/22-04/30/22, documented furosemide was administered past the one hour scheduled time frame for 17 administrations. Apixaban was administered past the one hour scheduled time frame for 20 administrations. An annual assessment, dated 05/13/22, documented the resident was cognitively intact, required supervision with most ADLs, and received anticoagulants and diuretics. On 02/14/23 at 1:43 p.m., Res #7 was observed sitting in a wheelchair in the commons area. Res #7 stated she was very sick back in February 2022 through April 2022. The resident stated during this time, the facility would administer the apixaban at the wrong time of day and this concerned her because her doctor had stated it should be given exactly twelve hours apart. Res #7 stated she was concerned that the facility was not giving her the diuretic at the scheduled ordered times during this time frame. On 02/15/23 at 3:00 p.m., the DON stated the medication administration time policy is one hour before or after the scheduled time. She stated a medication given outside of these parameters was considered not on time. On 02/15/23 at 4:30 p.m., the corporate RN stated the facility medication policy documented medications are to be given within a 60-minute time frame of the ordered time. She stated the apixaban and furosemide were given late but should not have been per policy.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0582 (Tag F0582)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide the ABN form to residents who received skilled services and afterwards stayed in the facility for three (#3, 31, and #32) of three ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide the ABN form to residents who received skilled services and afterwards stayed in the facility for three (#3, 31, and #32) of three residents sampled for beneficiary protection notification review. The MDS coordinator identified 22 residents who had been discharged from skilled services in the last six months. Findings: According to Res #3's medical record, Res #3 started skilled services on 11/01/22 and was discharged on 11/13/22. The ABN form was not provided. According to Res #31's medical record, Res #31 started skilled services on 02/02/23 and was discharged on 02/029/23. The ABN form was not provided. According to Res #32's medical record, Res #32 started skilled services on 10/28/22 and was discharged on 11/17/22. The ABN form was not provided. On 02/15/23 at 10:38 a.m., the MDS coordinator was asked if residents/residents beneficiary was provided the SN ABN CMS-10055 form. She reported she was unaware that they needed to sign it also.
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

  • "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
  • • No major safety red flags. No abuse findings, life-threatening violations, or SFF status.
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Oklahoma facilities.
Concerns
  • • 13 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
  • • 72% turnover. Very high, 24 points above average. Constant new faces learning your loved one's needs.
Bottom line: Mixed indicators with Trust Score of 65/100. Visit in person and ask pointed questions.

About This Facility

What is Tuttle's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns TUTTLE CARE CENTER 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 Tuttle Staffed?

CMS rates TUTTLE CARE CENTER's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 72%, which is 25 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 Tuttle?

State health inspectors documented 13 deficiencies at TUTTLE CARE CENTER during 2023 to 2025. These included: 13 with potential for harm.

Who Owns and Operates Tuttle?

TUTTLE CARE 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 SOUTHWEST LTC, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 52 certified beds and approximately 43 residents (about 83% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in TUTTLE, Oklahoma.

How Does Tuttle Compare to Other Oklahoma Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Oklahoma, TUTTLE CARE CENTER's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 2.6, staff turnover (72%) 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 Tuttle?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "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?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's high staff turnover rate and the below-average staffing rating.

Is Tuttle Safe?

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

Do Nurses at Tuttle Stick Around?

Staff turnover at TUTTLE CARE CENTER is high. At 72%, the facility is 25 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 Tuttle Ever Fined?

TUTTLE CARE 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 Tuttle on Any Federal Watch List?

TUTTLE CARE 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.

TUTTLE CARE CENTER

104 SOUTHEAST 4TH STREET, TUTTLE, OK 73089 | (405) 381-3363

C+
Trust Grade (65/100)
4.0
CMS Rating
13
Deficiencies

Strengths

  • Licensed facility

Concerns

  • Review findings

Ask about: Staff Retention, Rn Coverage

nursinghomedata.org | Data: CMS November 2025