Stay Ahead of Compliance with Monthly Citation Updates


In your State Survey window and need a snapshot of your risks?

Survey Preparedness Report

One Time Fee
$79
  • Last 12 months of citation data in one tailored report
  • Pinpoint the tags driving penalties in facilities like yours
  • Jump to regulations and pathways used by surveyors
  • Access to your report within 2 hours of purchase
  • Easily share it with your team - no registration needed
Get Your Report Now →

Monthly citation updates straight to your inbox for ongoing preparation?

Monthly Citation Reports

$18.90 per month
  • Latest citation updates delivered monthly to your email
  • Citations organized by compliance areas
  • Shared automatically with your team, by area
  • Customizable for your state(s) of interest
  • Direct links to CMS documentation relevant parts
Learn more →

Save Hours of Work with AI-Powered Plan of Correction Writer


One-Time Fee

$49 per Plan of Correction
Volume discounts available – save up to 20%
  • Quickly search for approved POC from other facilities
  • Instant access
  • Intuitive interface
  • No recurring fees
  • Save hours of work
F0848
D

Non-compliant Arbitration Agreement Venue Requirement

Stilwell, Oklahoma Survey Completed on 04-09-2025

Penalty

No penalty information released
tooltip icon
The penalty, as released by CMS, applies to the entire inspection this citation is part of, covering all citations and f-tags issued, not just this specific f-tag. For the complete original report, please refer to the 'Details' section.

Summary

The facility failed to ensure that its binding arbitration agreement did not mandate mediation to be held in a specific county, which is a violation of federal regulations. The arbitration agreement required mediation to occur in Tulsa County, Oklahoma, without allowing for mutual agreement on the venue. This was identified during a review of the facility's documents and interviews with staff and residents. The facility's policy stated that residents should have the opportunity to suggest an arbitrator and venue, and any disagreement by the facility should be documented. However, the agreement in question did not adhere to this policy, as it predetermined the location for mediation. A resident with an intact cognition, as indicated by a BIMS score of 15, was shown the arbitration agreement they had signed. The resident did not recall signing the agreement and expressed that the specified mediation site would not be convenient for them. The facility's administrator acknowledged that the agreement's requirement for mediation to occur in Tulsa County did not comply with federal regulations and agreed that the venue should be mutually agreed upon by both parties. The administrator also confirmed that all residents were offered the opportunity to sign the current binding arbitration agreement.

An unhandled error has occurred. Reload 🗙