205 East Poplar Street, Fort Gibson, OK 74434 · Muskogee County · (918) 478-2456
66 certified beds, about 56 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1998
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 375330 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on January 15, 2025, inspectors cited 8 health deficiencies (the Oklahoma average is 6.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 35 health citations since August 2022, 1 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $53,271 in the last three years; the largest was $53,271, and the latest is dated January 15, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.88 hours per resident per day, against 3.79 across Oklahoma and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.30 of those hours.
52.7% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Oklahoma average 55.5%).
CMS links it to Mgm Healthcare, an affiliated group of 27 nursing homes.
Federal rules call for a standard inspection at least every 15 months, plus a visit whenever a complaint is filed. Each mark below is one citation, colored by how serious inspectors rated it. How to read a citation.
Under each citation, the quoted text is the inspector's own summary from the federal statement of deficiencies (CMS form 2567), word for word apart from a privacy scrub; CMS removes residents' and staff names before it publishes the text. The full notes are on Medicare.gov.
CMS rates every citation by how much harm it caused (rows) and how many residents it touched (columns). The count in each box is this home's, across all 35 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to update and implement individualized fall interventions in the care plan for a resident who fell and sustained a head injury for one (#47) of one sampled resident reviewed for falls. The DON identified 17 residents who had fallen in the past three months.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident received restorative services to maintain or improve their ability to carry out activities of daily living for one (#26) of one sampled resident reviewed for activities of daily living. The DON identified nine residents who were currently receiving restorative services.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure: a. the ovens were clean; b. foods were labeled and dated in the refrigerator; and c. the ice scoop was maintained in a sanitary manner. The administrator identified 51 residents resided in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure enhanced barrier precautions were utilized during resident care for one (#32) of one sampled resident observed during care. The administrator identified 11 residents that required enhanced barrier precautions.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to complete a significant change assessment for a resident with a decline in ADLs due to an above knee amputation for one (#7) of 13 sampled residents reviewed for assessments. The administrator identified 51 residents resided in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a referral was made to the LOCEU for one (#3) of three sampled residents reviewed for PASSARs. The DON identified eight residents with a level II PASSAR.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a care plan was updated for one (#7) of thirteen resident care plans reviewed for accuracy. The administrator identified 51 residents resided in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered as ordered for one (#21) of five sampled residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The administrator identified 51 residents resided in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure food was stored, prepared, and served in a sanitary manner. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented 45 residents resided at the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to utilize their antibiotic stewardship policy to monitor antibiotic use for four (#11, 25, 32, and #36) of five residents reviewed for antibiotic use. 1. Res #11's physician order dated 08/18/23, documented the resident was to receive Zithromax 250 mg daily for four days for COVID-19. 2. Res #32's physician order, dated 08/22/23, documented the resident was to receive Zithromax 250 mg daily for four days for COVID-19. 3. Res #36's physician order, dated 04/17/23, documented the resident was to receive Cefdinir 300 mg twice a day for four days. 4. Res #25 had diagnoses which included UTI and ESBL. A physician order, dated 06/15/23, amoxicillin/clavulanate, administer one tablet by mouth two times a day related to urinary tract infections for seven days. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure assessments were encoded and transmitted to CMS in the required time frame for two (#41 and #44) of twenty residents whose assessments were reviewed. The Resident Census and Conditions of Resident form documented 45 residents resided in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive care plan was developed for resident to resident interaction related to wandering for one (#11) of 12 sampled resident whose care plans were reviewed. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented 45 residents resided in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents received the supervision and assistance to prevent falls for one (#18) of three sampled residents reviewed for accidents hazards. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form, documented 45 residents resided at the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the physician was notified of a significant weight loss and residents received interventions to maintain nutritional status within acceptable parameters for one (#32) of two residents sampled for nutritional status. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented 45 residents who resided in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure behaviors and/or side effects were monitored for the use of psychotropic medications for two of (#20 and #25) of five sampled residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented 45 residents who resided in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from significant medication errors for one (#20) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents report, documented 45 residents resided in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure labs were obtained per physician order for one (#20) of five sampled residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents report, documented 45 residents resided in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review,and interview, the facility failed to follow the menu and provide pureed foods listed on the menu for the puree diets from the kitchen. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented 11 residents resided at the facility who had mechanically altered diets including pureed and all chopped food.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview the facility failed to provide food that was palatable and at an appetizing temperature for the residents. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents report, documented 45 residents resided in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a DNR was signed by the appropriate person for two (#7 and #3) of five residents reviewed for advance directives. The administrator identified 23 residents in the facility had a DNR.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to notify the physician of blood pressure readings below normal limits for one (#5) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents documented 48 residents resided in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide letters of NOMNC to residents discharged from Medicare covered part A stay with benefit days remaining in the last 6 months. Page three of the entrance conference worksheet documented six residents were discharged from Medicare covered Part A stay with benefit days remaining in the last six months.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure assessments accurately reflected the residents' status for four (#5, 20, 44, and #45) of 20 residents whose assessments were reviewed. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented 48 residents resided in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to update the PASRR program level I screening as required, obtain existing Level II evaluation reports, and incorporate the evaluation reports into the residents' care plan for three, (#8, 27, and #44) of three residents reviewed for PASRR. The facility failed to: a. incorporate the evaluation report into the resident's care plan for Res #27. b. obtain an existing PASRR level II evaluation report for Res #8 on admission. c. contact OHCA when Res #44 obtained new psychiatric diagnoses. The administrator reported five residents who resided in the facility have PASRR Level II evaluations.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to develop and revise care plans for two, (#3 and #44) of 13 residents whose care plans were reviewed. The facility failed to: a. update fall care plans for Res #3 and #44. b. develop a care plan regarding psychosis and depression and/or the medication for these diagnoses for Res #44. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented 48 residents resided in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents received monitoring, interventions, and supervision to prevent falls for two, (#3 and #44) of two residents sampled for falls. The administrator reported 15 residents had fallen in the previous six months. Findings. 1. Res #3 had diagnoses which included osteoporosis, idiopathic epilepsy, and Alzheimer's disease. A fall care plan, with an update, dated 01/24/18, documented Res #3 was to have a bed alarm in bed. The care plan documented staff were to check placement and functioning every shift. An initial incident note, dated 12/14/22, documented Res #3 was standing up from the wheelchair and became unsteady and fell to the floor. The STPR was documented as continue all fall interventions in place. A fall care plan update, dated 12/31/21, documented facility staff were in-serviced on fall alarms. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to designate an RN to serve as DON for the previous eight months. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented 48 residents resided in the facility.
Inspectors wroteThe facility failed to ensure medications were administered as ordered by the physician for one (#5) of five residents sampled for medication review. The Resident Census and Condition of Resident's documented 48 residents resided in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure drug regimen reviews were acted upon for two (#5 and #20) of five residents reviewed for medications. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented 48 residents resided in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure the medication error rate was not five percent or greater. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents documented 48 residents resided in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to conduct a significant change assessment when the resident had an improvement in condition for one (#44) of 20 residents whose assessments were reviewed. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented 48 residents resided in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure completed resident assessments were transmitted to CMS within the required time frame for one (#1) of one resident reviewed for MDS assessments greater than 120 days old. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented 48 residents resided in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to conduct routine assessments of pressure ulcers for one (#39) of one resident reviewed for pressure ulcers. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented two residents had pressure ulcers.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a PRN psychotropic medication duration order did not extend beyond 14 days and GDR of psychotropic medications were attempted for one (#20) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented 48 residents resided in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure the residents were free of significant medication errors. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented 48 residents resided in the facility.
9 fire safety citations on file: 4 on September 20, 2023, 5 on August 4, 2022.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| January 15, 2025 | Fine | $53,271 |
| January 15, 2025 | Payment Denial | 7 days from February 11, 2025 |
A payment denial means Medicare and Medicaid stopped paying for new admissions for that period.
Hours of care per resident per day, from the payroll records every home sends CMS. Higher means more staff time with each resident.
| Measure | This home | Oklahoma | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 3.88 | 3.79 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.30 | 0.34 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.31 | 3.44 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.75 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.83 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 52.7% | 55.5% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | not reported | 53.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 4.14 hours a day for residents as sick as this home's (its case-mix figure). The staffing star compares the two.
Every nursing home sends CMS its staff hours for each day (the Payroll Based Journal). Here they are added up by quarter. The latest quarter is the one behind the figures above. In January to March 2026, nursing staff hours per resident were 4.12 on weekdays and 3.31 on weekends, 20% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.0% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 4.09 in April to June 2025 to 3.88 in January to March 2026.
| Quarter | All nursing staff | Registered nurses | Weekdays | Weekends | Contract staff share | Days with no RN hours | Residents a day |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.88 | 0.30 | 4.12 | 3.31 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 56 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.93 | 0.28 | 4.04 | 3.63 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 55 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 4.15 | 0.33 | 4.35 | 3.64 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 51 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 4.09 | 0.29 | 4.32 | 3.52 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 53 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Oklahoma, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.79 | 0.32 | 3.94 | 3.42 | 2.2% | 1.6% of days |
Hours per resident per day: staff hours in the quarter divided by resident days (the daily census CMS derives from resident assessments). Registered nurses include the director of nursing and RNs with administrative duties; aides include nurse aides in training and medication aides, as in CMS's own staffing measure. How these are calculated.
Staff pay reports
No staff pay figure for this home has passed review yet. A figure appears only after at least 5 reports from at least 3 different people, sent over at least 60 days, have passed review.
| Job | Median | Middle half | Employed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oklahoma, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $17.27 | $15.82 to $18.39 | 19,410 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $28.04 | $24.06 to $29.84 | 11,540 |
| Registered nurses | $39.87 | $37.19 to $47.55 | 38,270 |
| United States, nursing care facilities | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $20.67 | $17.91 to $22.55 | 534,270 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $33.86 | $30.05 to $37.40 | 188,210 |
| Registered nurses | $41.11 | $37.85 to $47.68 | 142,270 |
Hourly wages; the middle half runs from the 25th to the 75th percentile. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, May 2025. BLS has no separate estimate for medication aides. These are survey estimates for whole occupations, not figures for any one home.
The measures CMS uses for the quality star. Lower is better for every one of them.
| Measure | This home | Oklahoma | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.7 | 13.6 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 1.9 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 2.8 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.8 | 4.7 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 1.8 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.8 | 13.7 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.5 | 4.7 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 7.2 | 17.5 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 24.9 | 27.3 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 19.8 | 16.6 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.1 | 2.3 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Fort Gibson Care & Rehab Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (41.7% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
41.7% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · Oklahoma: 24 better, 16 worse
Rate of successful return to home or community from a SNF (risk-standardized discharge to community rate). Higher is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 36 eligible stays.
10.8% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Oklahoma: 1 better, 9 worse
Rate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 49 eligible stays.
9.0% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 7.1% · Oklahoma: 0 better, 4 worse
Percentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2023 to September 2024. 36 eligible stays.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Median of homes: Oklahoma54.3% · US 56.6%
Percentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 14 residents counted.
0.0% this home
Median of homes: Oklahoma0.7% · US 0.0%
Percentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay. Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 27 residents counted.
0.0% this home
Median of homes: Oklahoma2.4% · US 1.7%
Percentage of residents with pressure ulcers or pressure injuries that are new or worsened (adjusted rate). Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 27 residents counted.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Median of homes: Oklahoma100.0% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 2 residents counted.
Source: CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program - Provider Data, released 2026-09-30. Better, no different and worse are CMS's own comparisons with the national rate, after adjusting for how sick residents were. Medians of homes and the state counts are worked out by us from the same file.
Legal business name: FORT GIBSON HEALTHCARE LLC. CMS links this home to Mgm Healthcare, a group of 27 nursing homes averaging 2.3 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ok SNF Holdings, LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 50% | 05/14/2024 |
| Ok SNF Investments, LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 50% | 05/14/2024 |
| Jfb Ok Trust | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 50% | 05/14/2024 |
| Southeast Ventures Trust | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 48% | 05/14/2024 |
| Smith, Sara | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 05/14/2024 | |
| Friedman, Naftali | Corporate officer | Individual | 05/14/2024 |
As listed in the CMS ownership file, which names owners with a 5% or greater stake and the people and companies with operational or managerial control.
Chosen from this home's own inspection record.
These are the official offices in Oklahoma. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.