Oakridge Nursing Center: CPR Refused During Code - OK
Federal inspectors classified what followed as immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety.
The resident, identified in inspection records only as Resident 1, had a colostomy. In the hours before the code, a trainee nursing assistant referred to in the report as TNA 1 had been with the resident and noticed they appeared to be in pain. TNA 1 left the room and told a nurse, though TNA 1 later could not recall which nurse they had spoken to. Around 3:30 a.m., CNA 1 checked Resident 1's colostomy bag and burped it, releasing built-up gas. Thirty minutes later, a nurse called for help. There was a full code.
TNA 1 told inspectors they did not know how to perform CPR. That claim was contradicted by the inspection record itself. A CPR card in TNA 1's personnel documents showed the staff member had completed CPR training.
CNA 1 told TNA 1 to give it a try anyway. TNA 1 did one round of chest compressions. Then they told the others they would not do any more. Then they left.
Nobody used an Ambu bag to give breaths. TNA 1 told inspectors they did not know what an Ambu bag was and had not seen anyone attempt to use one during the code.
The director of nursing, when asked by inspectors about the events surrounding Resident 1's code, did not focus on what TNA 1 had done. Instead, the DON pointed elsewhere. The DON said the hospice service had made a mistake by telling facility staff that Resident 1 was a do-not-resuscitate patient. The implication was that the staff had been operating under bad information.
Then the DON said something that inspectors apparently found worth recording verbatim: the DON stated they felt the facility staff had provided effective CPR by calling the code and calling 911 quickly.
Calling 911 is not CPR. The inspection report does not indicate that the DON addressed the fact that a trained staff member had stopped chest compressions mid-code and walked out.
The citation is an F0678, which covers emergency and disaster preparedness, specifically the requirement that facilities have staff trained and available to respond to medical emergencies. The level of harm assigned was immediate jeopardy, the most serious classification available under federal inspection standards, reserved for situations where a facility's failures have placed residents in a position of serious injury, harm, impairment, or death.
The inspection was conducted September 12, 2025, in response to a complaint.
Inspectors noted the incident involved few residents. That designation reflects how many people were directly affected by the specific deficiency cited. It does not describe what Resident 1 experienced in the minutes when a staff member stopped, said no, and walked away.
The DON's account, as recorded in the inspection report, framed the central problem as a communication error by an outside hospice provider. A nurse was told the wrong code status. That may be true. But the inspection record also contains TNA 1's own account: they knew a code was happening, they were present, they had been trained in CPR, they did one round of compressions, and they decided that was enough.
No one in the room, based on TNA 1's account to inspectors, was delivering rescue breaths. No one was documented as having used the Ambu bag. TNA 1 said they had never seen one deployed.
Oakridge Nursing Center is a long-term care facility in Durant, in southeastern Oklahoma. The inspection report does not describe the outcome for Resident 1 beyond the events of that early morning shift.
What it does describe is a room, sometime around 4:00 a.m., where a nurse called out that she needed help, where a resident needed CPR, and where one of the people who came was trained to help, did almost nothing, said they were finished, and left.
Full Inspection Report
The details above represent a summary of key findings. View the complete inspection report for Oakridge Nursing Center from 2025-09-12 including all violations, facility responses, and corrective action plans.
Additional Resources
Data source: This article is based on inspection data downloaded directly from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) via Medicare.gov. CMS releases inspection reports in bulk; we publish the findings as documented by state surveyors in the official Form CMS-2567 Statement of Deficiencies.
Plan of correction: The CMS report we receive does not include the facility's plan of correction. Facilities submit plans of correction separately to state survey agencies and those responses may not be reflected in CMS data at the time of publication. The absence of a plan of correction in our data does not mean one was not filed. Readers who want information about corrective steps taken are encouraged to contact the facility directly or their state survey agency.
Corrections may have occurred: Inspection reports reflect conditions observed on the date of the survey. Facilities may have implemented corrections, staffing changes, additional training, or other remediation since the report was issued. We report what CMS provides and encourage readers to seek current information from the facility.
Editorial process: Inspection findings are extracted from CMS source documents and synthesized using AI, reviewed for factual accuracy against the original report by our editorial team.
Professional review: All content reviewed by Christopher F. Nesbitt, Sr., NH EMT & BU-trained Paralegal.
Last verified: September 19, 2026 · Our methodology
Oakridge Nursing Center in Durant, OK was cited for violations during a health inspection on September 12, 2025.
Federal inspectors classified what followed as immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety.
Health inspections identify deficiencies that facilities must correct. Violations range from minor documentation issues to serious safety concerns. Review the full report below for specific details and facility response.