TIDWELL LIVING CENTER

900 W RANCHWOOD DRIVE, WILBURTON, OK 74578 (918) 465-5020
For profit - Individual 55 Beds Independent Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
85/100
#34 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

Tidwell Living Center in Wilburton, Oklahoma, has a Trust Grade of B+, indicating it is above average and recommended for families seeking care. The facility ranks #34 out of 282 in Oklahoma, placing it in the top half of state facilities, and is the best option among the two nursing homes in Latimer County. The facility shows an improving trend, with the number of issues decreasing from 4 in 2024 to 2 in 2025, and it has a solid staffing rating with a turnover of 31%, which is significantly lower than the state average. However, there are some concerns, including a failure to monitor side effects of psychotropic medications for two residents, a lack of a water management program to prevent Legionella bacteria, and the omission of flu vaccinations for three residents due to communication issues with hospice staff. Overall, while there are some weaknesses, the facility's strengths, such as good staffing and an excellent overall rating, make it a viable choice for families.

Trust Score
B+
85/100
In Oklahoma
#34/282
Top 12%
Safety Record
Low Risk
No red flags
Inspections
Getting Better
4 → 2 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
31% turnover. Near Oklahoma's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Oklahoma facilities.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 20 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Oklahoma. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
14 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★★★
5.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
↔
Stable
2024: 4 issues
2025: 2 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
  • 5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (31%)

    17 points below Oklahoma average of 48%

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 31%

15pts below Oklahoma avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

The Ugly 14 deficiencies on record

May 2025 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure assessments were accurate for indwelling catheters for 1 (#26) of 12 sampled residents reviewed for resident assessmen...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure assessments were accurate for indwelling catheters for 1 (#26) of 12 sampled residents reviewed for resident assessments. The DON identified 32 residents who resided in the facility. Findings: On 05/06/25 at 3:11 p.m., Res #26 was observed sitting in the lobby in a wheelchair. No indwelling catheter was observed. A diagnoses sheet, dated 03/04/20, showed Res #26 was admitted with diagnoses which included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and convulsions. A quarterly assessment, dated 04/29/25, showed Res #26 had a brief interview for mental status score of 15 and was cognitively intact. The assessment showed Res #26 had an indwelling catheter. Res #26's medical record did not document an order for an indwelling catheter during the assessment review period of 04/23/25 through 04/29/25. On 05/06/25 at 3:13 p.m., Res #26 stated they did not have a catheter. They stated they had never had an indwelling catheter. On 05/07/25 at 12:57 p.m., LPN #1 stated Res #26 did not have an indwelling catheter recently. On 05/07/25 at 1:00 p.m., the minimum data set coordinator stated Res #26 did not have an indwelling catheter during the assessment review period. They stated the assessment was coded in error.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to implement EBPs during catheter care for 1 (#21) of 2 sampled residents reviewed for EBPs. The DON reported seven residents re...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to implement EBPs during catheter care for 1 (#21) of 2 sampled residents reviewed for EBPs. The DON reported seven residents required EBP. Findings: On 05/07/25 at 1:08 p.m. LPN #1 and certified nurse aide #1 were observed entering Res #21's room to perform catheter care. Neither staff was observed using EBPs when entering the room or while performing care. An undated policy titled Enhanced Barrier Precaution, read in part, Examples of high-contact resident care activities requiring the use of gown and gloves for EBPs include; device care or use (central line, urinary catheter, feeding tube, tracheostomy/ventilator). An undated diagnoses list showed Res #21 had diagnoses of paraplegia and seizure disorder. On 05/07/25 at 1:15 p.m., LPN #1 was asked if they knew what EBPs were. LPN #1 stated a gown, gloves, and a mask. LPN #1 was asked if EBPs applied to performing catheter care. LPN #1 stated they did not think so with catheter care. On 05/07/25 at 1:40 p.m., the DON reported staff did not use EBPs with catheter care.
Jan 2024 4 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0655 (Tag F0655)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to implement a baseline care plan that met the professional standards of quality care for one (#133) of one resident reviewed for baseline car...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to implement a baseline care plan that met the professional standards of quality care for one (#133) of one resident reviewed for baseline care plans. The administrator reported the census was 31. Findings: Resident #133 was admitted with diagnoses including a fractured hip and depression. A physician order, dated 01/02/24, documented the resident was to be given 4 mg of warfarin (an anticoagulant) by mouth on Sunday, Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday and 6 mg by mouth on Monday Tuesday and Thursday. The baseline care plan, dated 01/02/24, did address the use of an anticoagulant. On 01/10/24 at 1:18 p.m., the MDS coordinator stated anticoagulant use should be included on the care plan.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0757 (Tag F0757)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to monitor for side effects of psychotropic medications for two (#12 and #133) of five residents sampled for the use unnecessary medications. ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to monitor for side effects of psychotropic medications for two (#12 and #133) of five residents sampled for the use unnecessary medications. The administrator reported the facility census was 31. Findings: An undated policy titled Documentation for Behavioral Medications and Side Effects, read in part, .When medication is ordered by the physician, for a resident to treat a behavioral condition the nurse will initiate the Behavior Drug Monitoring Record . 1. Resident #12 had diagnoses which included bipolar disorder and generalized anxiety disorder. A physician order, dated 07/10/23, documented the resident was to be given 60 mg of Cymbalta by mouth at bedtime. A physician order, dated 11/01/23, documented the resident was to be given 2 mg of Risperdal twice a day. A care plan, dated 12/06/23, documented to monitor for potential side effects of psychotropic medications. A review of the resident's MAR and TAR did not document the resident was being monitored for side effects. 2. Resident #133 had diagnoses which included depression and hypertension. A physician order, dated 01/02/24, documented the resident was to be given 50 mg of Zoloft by mouth every day. A baseline care plan, dated 01/02/24, documented to monitor for side effects of psychotropic medications. A review of Resident #133's MAR and TAR did not document the resident was being monitored for side effects. On 01/10/24 at 10:53 a.m., the DON stated side effect monitoring should be documented in the MAR.
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 record review and interview, the facility failed to have a program designed to help prevent the development of Legionellosis and Pontiac Fever caused by Legionella Bacteria. The administrator...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to have a program designed to help prevent the development of Legionellosis and Pontiac Fever caused by Legionella Bacteria. The administrator reported the census was 31. Findings: On 01/11/24 at 10:10 a.m., the administrator stated the water management program was a work in progress and they did not currently have a policy in place or a diagram of the facilities water system.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0883 (Tag F0883)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure influenza vaccinations were offered for three (#5, #12, and #18) of five residents reviewed for immunizations. The administrator rep...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure influenza vaccinations were offered for three (#5, #12, and #18) of five residents reviewed for immunizations. The administrator reported the census was 31. Findings: A review of Resident #5, #12, and #18's immunization records did not document the residents had been offered an influenza immunization in 2023. On 01/11/24 at 1015 a.m. the DON stated Residents #5, #12, and #18 were all receiving hospice care and the hospice company was supposed to provide them with vaccinations. They also reported there had been a miscommunication between hospice staff and facility staff and that hospice staff thought the facility had vaccinated all the residents. The [NAME] also reported hospice staff would offer the immunization on their next visit.
Mar 2023 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0888 (Tag F0888)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure one (dietary helper #1) of 45 staff members received their second Covid-19 vaccination within 30 days of their hire date or been gra...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure one (dietary helper #1) of 45 staff members received their second Covid-19 vaccination within 30 days of their hire date or been granted exemption. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents, dated 03/02/23, documented a census of 28 residents. Findings: A COVID-19 VACCINE POLICY, undated, read in parts, .1st dose due by start date. 2nd dose- due by day 30 of start date . The Covid-19 Staff Vaccination Status for Providers, read in parts, .dietary helper #1 .hired 11/01/22 .temporary delay/new hire. On 03/02/23 at 2:15 p.m., the DON/IP reported dietary helper #1 was hired on 11/01/22 and should have been completely vaccinated within 30 days of their hire date. The DON/IP reported dietary helper #1 had received one vaccination but had not received the second vaccination. The DON/IP reported dietary helper #1 had not filed exemption and would not be considered a temporary delay. On 03/02/23 at 2:25 p.m., the Administrator reported dietary helper #1 should have been completely vaccinated within 30 days of their hire date.
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 F0568 (Tag F0568)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure accounting ledgers were in accordance with services provided for three (#1, 2 and #3) of three residents reviewed for personal funds...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure accounting ledgers were in accordance with services provided for three (#1, 2 and #3) of three residents reviewed for personal funds. The Administrator reported 14 residents with money held in the trust fund account. Findings: A Management of Resident Funds policy, undated, read in parts .The facility will maintain a precise account of all deposits and withdrawals .and will make all documentation readily available to the residents and/or designee. Res #1 had diagnoses which included heart failure and depression. A Social Security Administration Beneficiary Payee Ledger, dated November 2022, documented Senior Dental insurance for the months of October and November were deducted for Res #1. A Social Security Administration Beneficiary Payee Ledger, dated December 2022, documented the facility expenses for the months of October, November, and December were deducted for Res #1. A Social Security Administration Beneficiary Payee Ledger, dated February 2023, documented the facility expenses for the months of January and February were deducted for Res #1. On 03/02/23 at 9:05 a.m., Res #1 reported the staff did not provide them with accurate statements of their personal funds. Res #1 reported the staff deducted facility expenses for two or three months at a time. Res #2 had diagnoses which included heart failure and hypertension. A Social Security Administration Beneficiary Payee Ledger, dated December 2022, documented the facility expenses for the months of October, November, and December, were deducted for Res #2. A Social Security Administration Beneficiary Payee Ledger, dated February 2023, documented the facility expenses for the months of December and January were deducted for Res #2. On 03/02/23 at 9:50 a.m., Res #2 reported they had no awareness of the amount of money that was in their personal fund. Res #3 was admitted with diagnoses which included hypertension and diabetes. A Social Security Administration Beneficiary Payee Ledger, dated December 2022, documented the facility expenses for the months of October, November, and December, were deducted for Res #3. A Social Security Administration Beneficiary Payee Ledger, dated February 2023, documented the facility expenses for the months of January and February were deducted for Res #3. On 03/02/23 at 2:15 p.m., Res #3 reported the facility waited two or three months before the staff deducted facility expenses and it gets confusing because when they were given a balance they were unaware if the facility expenses had been deducted. On 03/02/23 at 2:50 p.m., the office manager reported the monthly statements were not always accurate. The office manager reported the facility expenses should have been deducted monthly. On 03/02/23 at 2:55 p.m., the Administrator reported the monthly statements should have been accurate and the facility expenses should have been deducted monthly.
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 F0570 (Tag F0570)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to maintain a surety bond in a sufficient amount to cover the residents' trust fund account. The administrator reported 14 residents had mone...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to maintain a surety bond in a sufficient amount to cover the residents' trust fund account. The administrator reported 14 residents had money held in the trust fund account. Findings: The surety bond, effective 07/10/22 to 07/10/23, was reviewed and the Bond Amount was documented in the amount of $15,000.00. On 03/02/23 at 3:00 p.m., the Administrator provided the trust fund balance of $33,390.55. On 03/02/23 at 3:02 p.m., the Administrator reported the surety bond was not enough to cover the trust fund balance.
Sept 2022 5 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 19 resident assessments of 28 resident assessments reviewed were submitted in the required time frame. A CMS Submission Report, dat...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure 19 resident assessments of 28 resident assessments reviewed were submitted in the required time frame. A CMS Submission Report, dated 08/01/22, documented 28 resident assessments were submitted. Findings: The CMS Submission Report dated, 08/01/22, read in part . Record submitted late. The submission date is more than 14 days . for 19 resident assessments between the dates of 06/18/22 through 07/16/22. On 09/21/22 at 10:45 a.m., the MDS coordinator reported the assessments were not submitted in the right time frame. On 09/21/22 at 11:00 a.m., the administrator reported the resident assessments should have been submitted within the required time frame. On 09/21/22 at 11:10 a.m., the DON reported the expectation was for the resident assessments to be submitted in the required time frame.
CONCERN (D)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to perform bathing as scheduled for one (#20) of two residents reviewed for bathing. The administrator reported 14 residents req...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to perform bathing as scheduled for one (#20) of two residents reviewed for bathing. The administrator reported 14 residents required assistance with bathing. Findings: Res #20 was admitted with diagnoses which included anxiety, epilepsy, and heart failure. Res #20's care plan, dated 07/27/22, read in part, .I do require assistance with showering. A document titled, ADL Bathing, documented the resident received a bath on 08/13/22 and 08/27/22 for the month of August 2022. A document titled ADL Bathing, documented the resident received a bath on 09/03/22, 09/10/22, and 09/17/22 for the month of September 2022. Res #20's quarterly assessment, dated 09/15/22, documented the resident required assistance with activities of daily living and was cognitively intact. On 09/19/22 at 09:47 a.m., Res #20 was observed in bed. The resident stated they were not being bathed twice a week as scheduled. On 09/20/22 at 8:45 a.m., Res #20 was observed in bed. On 09/20/22 at 12:25 p.m., the DON reported Res #20's showers were scheduled twice a week on Wednesday and Saturday. The DON reported the showers were not given as scheduled.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0642 (Tag F0642)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to correct rejected resident assessments for six of 28 resident assessments submitted to CMS. The CMS Submission Report, dated 08/01/22, docum...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to correct rejected resident assessments for six of 28 resident assessments submitted to CMS. The CMS Submission Report, dated 08/01/22, documented six of 28 resident assessments submitted from 06/19/22 to 07/28/22 were rejected by CMS. Findings: The CMS Submission Report, dated 08/01/22, documented six resident assessments were rejected for the submission period of 06/19/22 to 07/28/22. The MDS coordinator did not correct and resubmit the resident assessments for approval. On 09/21/22 at 10:45 a.m., the MDS coordinator reported the rejected assessments should have been corrected and resubmitted. On 09/21/22 at 11:00 a.m., the administrator reported the rejected assessments should have been corrected and resubmitted. On 09/21/22 at 11:10 a.m., the DON reported the rejected assessments should have been corrected and resubmitted.
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure sanitary conditions were maintained during food preparation. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents, dated 09...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure sanitary conditions were maintained during food preparation. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents, dated 09/19/21, documented 28 residents ate from the kitchen. Findings: A Daily/Weekly Dietary Cleaning Schedule, dated 08/19/22 to 08/25/22, showed no daily cleaning tasks were performed on 08/25/22 and no weekly tasks were performed A Daily/Weekly Dietary Cleaning Schedule, dated 08/26/22 to 09/01/22, showed no daily or weekly cleaning tasks were performed. On 09/19/22 at 9:25 a.m., a dry black substance was observed on a countertop near the hand washing station. On 09/19/22 at 9:25 a.m., a pack of cigarretes, a disposable lighter, and a cellular phone were observed on a countertop near the hand washing station. On 09/19/22 at 9:30 a.m., a brown, sticky, substance was observed on the bottom shelf of refrigerator number three. On 09/19/22 at 9:30 a.m., a brown, sticky, substance was observed on the door handle of freezer number five. On 09/19/22 at 9:35 a.m., a plastic bin labeled sugar was observed to contain three plastic scoops. On 09/19/22 at 9:40 a.m., the range top burner grates were observed to have black and brown chunks of dried food particles. On 09/20/22 at 9:38 a.m. a brown, sticky, substance was observed on the bottom shelf of refrigerator number three. On 09/20/22 at 9:38 a.m., a brown, sticky, substance was observed on the door handle of freezer number five. On 09/20/22 at 9:40 a.m., a plastic bin labeled sugar was observed to contain three plastic scoops. On 09/20/22 at 9:40 a.m., the range top burner grates were observed to have black and brown chunks of dried food particles. On 09/19/22 at 9:30 a.m., [NAME] #1 reported the brown, sticky, substance on the bottom shelf of refrigerator number three was tea, they reported they did not what the brown, sticky, substance on the door handle of freezer number five was. On 09/19/22 at 9:30 a.m, the administrator reported the cigarettes, lighter, and cellular phone should not have been placed on a countertop near the hand wasing station. On 09/21/22 at 10:35 a.m., [NAME] #3 reported they had not cleaned the range the day before. On 09/21/22 at 10:40 a.m, the administrator reported the plastic bin labeled sugar should not have contained any scoops and the range was not clean. The administrator also reported the daily/weekly cleaning schedule should have followed.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0925 (Tag F0925)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents, dated 09/19/22, documented 28 residents resided...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents, dated 09/19/22, documented 28 residents resided in the facility. Findings: On 09/19/22 at 9:25 a.m., a brown insect was observed crawling on the countertop beside the hand washing station in the kitchen. On 09/19/22 at 9:25 a.m., three brown insects were observed crawling inside the cabinet beside the hand washing station in the kitchen. On 09/19/22 at 9:30 a.m., approximately five rodent droppings were observed inside the cabinet beside the hand washing station in the kitchen. On 09/19/22 at 9:35 a.m., approximately ten rodent dropping were observed in a plastic bin, in the dry food storage area, labeled jelly/reg jelly. On 09/19/22 at 9:40 a.m., approximately ten rodent droppings were observed on the floor in the corner of the dry food storage area. On 09/20/22 at 9:40 a.m., approximately five rodent droppings were observed inside the cabinet beside the hand washing station in the kitchen. On 09/20/22 at 9:40 a.m. approximately two brown insects were observed inside the cabinet beside the hand washing station in the kitchen. On 09/20/22 at 9:40 a.m., approximately ten rodent dropping were observed in a plastic bin, in the dry food storage area, labeled jelly/reg jelly. On 09/20/22 at 9:45 a.m., approximately ten rodent droppings were observed on the floor in the corner of the dry food storage area. On 09/20/22 at 10:00 a.m., the administrator identified the brown insects as roaches. On 09/21/22 at 9:37 a.m., [NAME] #1 identified the brown insects as roaches.
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

  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Grade B+ (85/100). Above average facility, better than most options in Oklahoma.
  • • 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.
  • • 31% turnover. Below Oklahoma's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • 14 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
Bottom line: Generally positive indicators. Standard due diligence and a personal visit recommended.

About This Facility

What is Tidwell Living Center's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns TIDWELL LIVING CENTER an overall rating of 5 out of 5 stars, which is considered much 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 Tidwell Living Center Staffed?

CMS rates TIDWELL LIVING CENTER's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 31%, compared to the Oklahoma average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Tidwell Living Center?

State health inspectors documented 14 deficiencies at TIDWELL LIVING CENTER during 2022 to 2025. These included: 14 with potential for harm.

Who Owns and Operates Tidwell Living Center?

TIDWELL LIVING CENTER 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 55 certified beds and approximately 33 residents (about 60% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in WILBURTON, Oklahoma.

How Does Tidwell Living Center Compare to Other Oklahoma Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Oklahoma, TIDWELL LIVING CENTER's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 2.7, staff turnover (31%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Tidwell Living Center?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "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?"

Is Tidwell Living Center Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, TIDWELL LIVING 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 5-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 Tidwell Living Center Stick Around?

TIDWELL LIVING CENTER has a staff turnover rate of 31%, 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 Tidwell Living Center Ever Fined?

TIDWELL LIVING 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 Tidwell Living Center on Any Federal Watch List?

TIDWELL LIVING 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.

TIDWELL LIVING CENTER

900 W RANCHWOOD DRIVE, WILBURTON, OK 74578 | (918) 465-5020

B+
Trust Grade (85/100)
5.0
CMS Rating
14
Deficiencies

Strengths

  • 4-star staffing
  • 5-star quality

Concerns

  • Review findings

Ask about: Rn Coverage

nursinghomedata.org | Data: CMS November 2025