Shawn Manor Nursing Home
2024 Turner Road, Ponca City, OK 74604 · Kay County · 96 certified beds · avg 54 residents/day · certified since Jan 16, 1995
Part of chain: CONHOLD (5 facilities, chain avg rating 4.0★)
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
Health inspection rating: ★★★★★5/5 · CMS overall rating: 5/5
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)
▲ Actual harm, repeated · Sep 9, 2022 · F-0600
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 (H): Multiple residents were actually harmed by the same failure — a pattern of real harm, not an isolated incident.
Corrected: Oct 24, 2022 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, repeated · Sep 9, 2022 · F-0607
The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. These written safeguards are the foundation of resident protection.
Why it matters: Without working prevention policies, mistreatment is more likely to happen and less likely to be caught.
Severity (H): Multiple residents were actually harmed by the same failure — a pattern of real harm, not an isolated incident.
Corrected: Oct 24, 2022 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, repeated · Sep 9, 2022 · F-0609
The facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation.
Why it matters: When incidents aren't reported promptly, abusers may continue harming residents and outside authorities can't step in.
Severity (H): Multiple residents were actually harmed by the same failure — a pattern of real harm, not an isolated incident.
Corrected: Oct 24, 2022 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, repeated · Sep 9, 2022 · F-0610
The facility did not respond appropriately to alleged violations, such as reports of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Facilities must investigate every allegation and protect residents while they do.
Why it matters: When allegations aren't investigated, harm to residents can continue unchecked.
Severity (H): Multiple residents were actually harmed by the same failure — a pattern of real harm, not an isolated incident.
Corrected: Oct 24, 2022 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
All citations in the current public record (22)
CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed.
| Date | Severity | What the facility was cited for |
|---|---|---|
| Nov 20, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. |
| Nov 20, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service. |
| Nov 20, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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. |
| Nov 2, 2023 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility charged residents' personal funds for items or services that Medicare or Medicaid already pays for. Facilities may not bill residents for covered items. |
| Nov 2, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide the care needed to maintain or improve residents' movement and flexibility — such as range-of-motion exercises — leading to avoidable decline. |
| Nov 2, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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. |
| Sep 9, 2022 | ▲ H · Actual harm, repeated | 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. |
| Sep 9, 2022 | ▲ H · Actual harm, repeated | The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. These written safeguards are the foundation of resident protection. |
| Sep 9, 2022 | ▲ H · Actual harm, repeated | The facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. |
| Sep 9, 2022 | ▲ H · Actual harm, repeated | The facility did not respond appropriately to alleged violations, such as reports of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Facilities must investigate every allegation and protect residents while they do. |
| Sep 9, 2022 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not honor residents' rights to request, refuse, or stop treatment, to decline participation in medical research, or to make an advance directive — a written statement of their wishes for future medical care. |
| Sep 9, 2022 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. |
| Sep 9, 2022 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not keep residents' medications free from unnecessary drugs. Residents should only take medicines they truly need, at the right dose, for a clear reason. |
| Sep 9, 2022 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The 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. |
| Sep 9, 2022 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The 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. |
| Sep 9, 2022 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not have a working program to monitor how antibiotics are used. Tracking antibiotic use helps make sure these drugs are given only when needed and remain effective. |
| Sep 9, 2022 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations. |
| Sep 9, 2022 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not perform required COVID-19 testing on residents and staff. |
| Sep 9, 2022 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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. |
| Sep 9, 2022 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required. |
| Sep 9, 2022 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide or obtain laboratory tests when a doctor ordered them, or did not promptly report the results back to the doctor who ordered them. |
| Sep 9, 2022 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not train its staff on dementia care and on recognizing and reporting abuse, neglect, and exploitation. |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (3 → 3).
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 16 | 4 | H ▲ |
| 2023 | 3 | 0 | E |
| 2024 | 3 | 0 | D |
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)
| Measure | This facility | Oklahoma avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 3.74 | 4.58 | 3.95 | bottom 10% in Oklahoma; bottom 49% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.27 | 0.41 | 0.69 | bottom 22% in Oklahoma; bottom 7% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.74 | 4.16 | 3.50 | bottom 24% in Oklahoma; top 32% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.15 | 0.28 | 0.48 | bottom 14% in Oklahoma; bottom 6% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 45.8 | 55.5 | 45.8 | top 24% in Oklahoma; bottom 48% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 0.0 | 53.6 | 42.9 | — |
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 3.02, RN 0.22, weekend 3.01. 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: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 3/5
Who owns this facility
For profit - Corporation
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sullivan, James | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 09/27/2010 |
| Allred, Amy | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/14/2018 |
| Allred, Amy | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/14/2018 |
| Conhold of Ponca LLC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/27/2010 |
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "Tell me about this abuse or neglect citation — what happened, and what specific changes did you make afterward?"
- "What specific steps do you take to prevent abuse and neglect, and how are staff trained on them?"
- "When abuse or theft is suspected, who do you notify, how fast, and how do you inform the family?"
- "If someone reports suspected abuse or neglect here, what happens in the first 24 hours?"
- "Who completes resident assessments here, and how do you check them for accuracy?"
- "Do you have a qualified dietician on staff, and how involved are they in each resident's nutrition plan?"
- "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
- "Can you give me a written list of exactly what residents are charged for beyond what Medicare or Medicaid covers?"
- "What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
- "Can I see the results and plan of correction from your most recent state inspection?"
Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bradbury Commons | 1.1 mi | Ponca City, OK | ★★★★☆ | 5/5 | |
| Ponca City Nursing & Rehabilitation Center | 2.5 mi | Ponca City, OK | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Hillcrest Manor Nursing Center | 13.8 mi | Blackwell, OK | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
All facilities in Ponca City →
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 375194.