Overall sentiment in the reviews is highly mixed and polarized: many reviewers describe Broken Arrow Nursing Home as a small, family-run facility with deeply caring, long-tenured staff and a home-like, country atmosphere, while a substantial minority report serious problems that range from poor cleanliness and pest infestations to mistreatment and safety concerns. The strongest positive themes are continuity of care, personalized attention from owners and veteran staff, homemade meals, and a range of activities that keep residents socially and mentally engaged. The strongest negative themes are inconsistent staffing and care quality, episodes of rude or allegedly abusive behavior, and infrastructure or sanitation problems in parts of the facility. Families’ experiences appear to vary greatly depending on unit, shift, or specific staff involved.
Care quality and staffing: Many reviews praise individual caregivers, CNAs, and nurses as compassionate, knowledgeable, and attentive, and several families note long-standing relationships and low turnover among certain staff members — features that contribute to feelings of security and personalized care. Conversely, numerous reviews describe chronic short-staffing, regular use of agency staff, slow response times for assistance, and instances where staff were inattentive or outright confrontational. There are specific, serious allegations — including a reported abusive incident involving a staff member named Tiffany — and reports of residents being treated poorly or moved out because of safety concerns. This variation suggests inconsistent training, oversight, or staffing levels that produce both excellent and unacceptable experiences.
Activities and resident life: Positive reports consistently mention a rich calendar of activities: daily games, social opportunities, physical activities, educational and entertaining programs, and creative offerings that help residents stay engaged and make friends. Several families specifically note that residents seemed happier, adapted well, and enjoyed a non-hospital, home-like environment. These programs appear to be a genuine strength and are emphasized by multiple reviewers as improving quality of life.
Dining and personal services: A clear pattern emerges where many families praise the kitchen for homemade, scratch-cooked, country-style meals, soups, and accommodating food staff. However, an opposing pattern of complaints describes cold, inedible meals, inconsistency between posted menus and what is served, and an overall decline in meal quality for some residents. Salon services and routine hygiene care (daily showers) are mentioned as available, although some reviewers say hygiene and daily assistance were neglected at times due to staffing issues.
Facilities and cleanliness: Several reviewers describe the facility as homey, clean, decorated with murals, and comfortable with cozy shared rooms. At the same time, others report serious environmental and infrastructure issues: roach infestations, sewer gas smells in bathrooms, lights going off at night, and a generally old or run-down appearance. Limited availability of private rooms and some reviewers’ descriptions of a 'prison-like' atmosphere are notable. These contradictory accounts point to uneven maintenance and potentially localized pest or sanitation problems that should be verified during a visit or via state inspection reports.
Management, administration, and policies: Some families commend the hands-on owner and director, quick responses to questions, and a personal, family-owned approach that offers bespoke care. In contrast, multiple reviews indicate administrative disorganization, billing pressure, a perception of money-driven decisions, and difficulty lodging complaints. There are specific operational concerns reported (e.g., wrong funeral home called, medication or comfort-care disputes, restrictions on visits during COVID) that have real implications for trust and safety. These administrative inconsistencies appear to contribute significantly to the polarized experiences families report.
Notable patterns and recommendations: The reviews indicate strong positives related to warm, committed caregivers and social programming, but also recurring red flags around staffing levels, cleanliness, and professional behavior. Because experiences vary so widely, prospective families should carefully vet the facility in person and ask targeted questions: current staffing ratios and use of agency staff by shift; recent state inspection and incident reports; how complaints are handled and documented; pest control and sanitation records; examples of staff training and supervision; sample menus and observation of a mealtime; availability of private rooms and transfer policies; and whether the ownership/director is regularly on-site. Ask for references from current families on the unit you would use, and consider an extended respite stay to assess consistency across shifts.
Bottom line: Broken Arrow Nursing Home demonstrates real strengths as a small, family-operated facility that can offer warm, individualized care, homemade meals, and engaging activities. However, a meaningful subset of reviewers report severe problems — ranging from unprofessional or abusive staff behavior to sanitation and safety issues — that indicate inconsistent oversight and staffing. Those positives make the facility worth considering for families who value a homier, long-standing community, but the negative reports are serious enough that thorough, targeted due diligence is essential before making placement decisions.
