OklahomaHeavener

Heavener Nursing & Rehab

114 West 2nd Street, Heavener, OK 74937 · Le Flore County · 84 certified beds · avg 72 residents/day · certified since Mar 29, 2003

Abuse citation flag (CMS)

Part of chain: BRADFORD MONTGOMERY (11 facilities, chain avg rating 2.2★)

The abuse flag means inspectors cited this facility for abuse that caused harm to a resident within the past year, or potential for harm in each of the last two years. Source: CMS.

1/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
3
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.53
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)

Health inspection rating: ★☆☆☆☆1/5 · CMS overall rating: 1/5

The health inspection star above is graded on a curve within each state — a set share of each state's facilities gets each star level — so a facility can have few citations and still rate 2–3 stars if others in its state did even better. The overall rating combines that inspection score with staffing and self-reported quality measures.

Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, one-off · Nov 8, 2022 · F-0684

The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.

Why it matters: Care that strays from doctor's orders or ignores the resident's wishes can lead to declining health and avoidable harm.

Severity (J): Inspectors found a situation that put a resident's life or safety in immediate danger, affecting one or a few residents. The facility must fix it immediately — these citations often come with large fines.

Corrected: Nov 8, 2022 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, one-off · Nov 8, 2022 · F-0756

The facility did not have a licensed pharmacist review each resident's complete medication regimen and medical chart every month, or did not follow its own rules for reporting medication problems.

Why it matters: Skipped pharmacist reviews allow unnecessary drugs, wrong doses, and harmful interactions to go undetected.

Severity (J): Inspectors found a situation that put a resident's life or safety in immediate danger, affecting one or a few residents. The facility must fix it immediately — these citations often come with large fines.

Corrected: Nov 8, 2022 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Jun 11, 2026 · F-0600 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors.

Why it matters: Abuse and neglect cause direct physical and emotional harm and are among the most serious failures a nursing home can have.

Severity (G): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.

Corrected: Jul 19, 2026 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

All citations in the current public record (35)

CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed.

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
Jun 11, 2026▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint
Jun 11, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · from a complaint
Jun 11, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · from a complaint
May 22, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not inform residents of their visitation rights or did not treat all visitors equally. Residents have the right to receive the visitors they choose. · from a complaint
Apr 3, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not fully assess residents on time — a complete assessment of health, abilities, and needs is required when a resident is first admitted and at least once every 12 months after that.
Apr 3, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not update each resident's care assessment at least once every 3 months. These regular check-ins keep the resident's care plan matched to their current condition.
Apr 3, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines.
Apr 3, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide appropriate care related to bladder and bowel needs — including care for residents who use catheters and steps to prevent urinary tract infections.
Apr 3, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not have a licensed pharmacist review each resident's complete medication regimen and medical chart every month, or did not follow its own rules for reporting medication problems.
Apr 3, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Apr 3, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · from a complaint
Apr 3, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not reassess a resident after a significant change in their condition, such as a sudden decline in health. A full new assessment is required when a resident's condition changes in a major way.
Dec 14, 2023F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Dec 14, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not enter each resident's assessment information into the required format and send it to the state within 7 days of completing the assessment, as the rules require.
Dec 14, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide safe and appropriate respiratory care — such as oxygen, breathing treatments, or care for residents on breathing equipment — for residents who needed it.
Dec 14, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist.
Dec 14, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not try to gradually reduce doses of mood- and mind-altering medications or use non-drug approaches first, as required, or used 'as needed' psychiatric drugs without proper limits.
Dec 14, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility's medication error rate was 5 percent or higher — meaning too many doses were given incorrectly, such as the wrong drug, dose, or time.
Dec 14, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock.
Dec 14, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives.
Dec 14, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not coordinate resident assessments with the state's pre-admission screening program for mental illness and intellectual disabilities, or failed to refer residents for the special services they need.
Dec 14, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not have a licensed pharmacist review each resident's complete medication regimen and medical chart every month, or did not follow its own rules for reporting medication problems.
Dec 14, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide.
Oct 13, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not post its nurse staffing information every day. Nursing homes must publicly display how many nurses and aides are on duty each day. · from a complaint
Nov 8, 2022▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, one-offThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.
Nov 8, 2022▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, one-offThe facility did not have a licensed pharmacist review each resident's complete medication regimen and medical chart every month, or did not follow its own rules for reporting medication problems.
Nov 8, 2022E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not have a registered nurse on duty at least 8 hours a day, or did not have a registered nurse serving full-time as director of nursing.
Nov 8, 2022E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock.
Nov 8, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not fully assess residents on time — a complete assessment of health, abilities, and needs is required when a resident is first admitted and at least once every 12 months after that.
Nov 8, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not update each resident's care assessment at least once every 3 months. These regular check-ins keep the resident's care plan matched to their current condition.
Nov 8, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not enter each resident's assessment information into the required format and send it to the state within 7 days of completing the assessment, as the rules require.
Nov 8, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not make sure resident assessments were done by a qualified health professional. Assessments guide all of a resident's care, so the person doing them must be properly trained.
Nov 8, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not create and follow a basic care plan covering a new resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of admission. The first days are when a new resident is most vulnerable.
Nov 8, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not try to gradually reduce doses of mood- and mind-altering medications or use non-drug approaches first, as required, or used 'as needed' psychiatric drugs without proper limits.
Nov 8, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (11 → 8).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
2022112J ▲
2023120F
202590E
202631G ▲

Counts reflect the current CMS public record (~3 inspection cycles plus complaint investigations); years with no surveys show no row. Inspection frequency varies, so compare severity as well as counts.

Fines and enforcement (last 3 years)

No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.

Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)

MeasureThis facilityOklahoma avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)4.534.583.95top 49% in Oklahoma; top 22% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.230.410.69bottom 14% in Oklahoma; bottom 4% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing3.874.163.50bottom 34% in Oklahoma; top 27% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.220.280.48bottom 40% in Oklahoma; bottom 16% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)0.055.545.8
RN turnover (%)0.053.642.9

Hours are per resident per day, case-mix adjusted by CMS so facilities caring for sicker residents can be compared fairly (same basis as the CMS staffing star). "Top X%" means better than most facilities: more staffing hours, or lower turnover. Raw (unadjusted) reported hours: total 3.59, RN 0.18, weekend 3.06. Staffing rating: 2/5.

Self-reported quality measures

Note: these ratings are based on data the facility reports about itself to CMS. They are not independently verified by inspectors, and can look better than inspection findings. Give more weight to the inspection results above.

Quality measures rating: 2/5 · long-stay residents: 3/5 · short-stay residents: 1/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Limited Liability company

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Montgomery, BradfordIndividual5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest100%05/28/2013
Townsend, MitchellIndividualW-2 Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE03/17/2015
Whitley, TinaIndividualW-2 Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE04/01/2018
Whitley, TinaIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE04/01/2018

Questions to ask on your visit

Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.

Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
The Oaks Healthcare Center10.4 miPoteau, OK★☆☆☆☆2/5

Compare this facility with the 1 closest →

All facilities in Heavener →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 375434.