Hearth Record

Assured Home Health of Clinton

A home health agency in Clinton, Oklahoma 73601

514 Avant Avenue, Clinton, Oklahoma 73601. (580) 323-0277.

CMS’s own record, on Care Compare

Watch and the shortlist are kept with a free account, on every device. Your watch list. CMS’s own record is on Care Compare.

The short answer

Record last released by CMS on Oct 21, 2026.

The last 24 months 2 deficiencies in 1 month of the last 36. Last cited May 2024. Most serious: Element-level. Every month

Each figure’s source sits beside it, in its section below.

What these words mean3
Star ratings
CMS rates some kinds of place from 1 to 5 stars, more stars meaning better on CMS’s own measures for that kind: for a nursing home, its health inspections, staffing and quality measures. A rating is CMS’s summary of those measures; it doesn’t promise good care. Source: CMS, Care Compare and the Five-Star Quality Rating System.
Inspection (survey)
A visit by state inspectors, often unannounced, who check a place against the rules it must meet. For nursing homes and other places Medicare pays, CMS calls these visits surveys: a standard survey of a nursing home comes at least every 15 months, and a complaint survey whenever a complaint calls for one. Source: CMS; 42 CFR 488.308.
Deficiency, citation, violation
What inspectors write up when a place didn’t meet a rule: the rule, what they saw, and when. CMS calls it a deficiency; states may say citation or violation. It is the inspectors’ finding, not a court’s, and the place is usually asked for a plan to correct it. Source: CMS, statement of deficiencies (Form CMS-2567); each state’s licensing agency.

What did inspectors find?

The last inspection on record was on May 8, 2024: a recertification inspection.

2 deficiencies cited in the last three years.

Source:

CMS, QCOR home health inspection reports. Released Oct 20, 2026. Updated monthly.

When those deficiencies happened

2 deficiencies in 1 month of the last 36. Last cited May 2024. Most serious: Element-level. The last 3 years, to Oct 24, 2026.

2 deficiencies by month over the last 3 years. Each cell is one month.
JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec
2023 NovDec
2024 JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec
2025 JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec
2026 JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOct

Hover or focus a month to read it.

No visit on record Visited, nothing cited A stronger orange is more serious, on its source’s own levels, read onto four bands: from the least serious it publishes to the most
Source:

Hearth Record drew this from the dates and levels in the source’s own records.

Each deficiency, as cited

Rule titles as CMS’s inspectors cite them, set in sentence case.

Source:

CMS, QCOR home health inspection reports. Released Oct 20, 2026. Updated monthly.

May 8, 2024: recertification inspection2 deficiencies
  • Plan Of Care Must Include The Following

    The inspectors’ words, 316 words

    “Plan of care must include the following CFR(s): 484.60(a)(2)(i-xvi) The individualized plan of care must include the following: (i) All pertinent diagnoses; (ii) The patient’s mental, psychosocial, and cognitive status; (iii) The types of services, supplies, and equipment required; (iv) The frequency and duration of visits to be made; (v) Prognosis; (vi) Rehabilitation potential; (vii) Functional limitations; (viii) Activities permitted; (ix) Nutritional requirements; (x) All medications and treatments; (xi) Safety measures to protect against injury; (xii) A description of the patient’s risk for emergency department visits and hospital re-admission, and all necessary interventions to address the underlying risk factors. (xiii) Patient and caregiver education and training to facilitate timely discharge; (xiv) Patient-specific interventions and education; measurable outcomes and goals identified by the HHA and the patient; (xv) Information related to any advanced directives; and (xvi) Any additional items the HHA or physician or allowed practitioner may choose to include. This Element is not met as evidenced by: Based on record review and interview, the agency failed to ensure an individualized plan of care for three (Patient #2, 3 and 5) of 7 patients. Patient #2 A review of the plan of care dated 03/23/24 to 05/21/24 showed a primary diagnosis of hypertensive chronic kidney disease with no individualized interventions developed for the management of the primary diagnosis. Patient #3 A review of the plan of care dated 03/15/24 to 05/13/24 showed a primary diagnosis of aftercare following joint replacement with no individualized interventions to the management of care to the identified location of the joint affected. Patient #5 A review of the plan of care dated 03/28/24 to 05/26/24 showed a primary diagnosis of hepatic encephalopathy with no individualized interventions developed for the management of the primary diagnosis. On 05/08/24 at 12:50 pm, Staff B stated the plan of care for Patients #2, 3 and 5 were not individualized for the management of the primary diagnosis.”

    Rule G0574. Element-level.

  • Coordinate Patient Care

    The inspectors’ words, 759 words

    “Coordinate patient care CFR(s): 484.105(c)(2) Coordinating patient care, This Element is not met as evidenced by: Based on record review and interview, the agency failed to: 1. Ensure coordination of care regarding a significant weight gain for one (Patient #5) of seven patients and 2. Ensure coordination of care regarding elevated pulse reading outside of ordered parameters for one (Patient #6) of seven patients. 1. Patient #5 A review of the plan of care dated 03/28/24 to 05/26/24 showed a primary diagnosis of hepatic encephalopathy. A review of the clinical record showed the following: An initial skilled nurse assessment dated 03/28/24 documented a weight of 166#. A skilled nurse assessment dated 04/04/24 documented a weight of 172# (a six-pound weight gain in one week). A skilled nurse assessment dated 04/11/24 documented a weight of 180# (an eight-pound weight gain in one week and a 14-pound weight gain in two weeks). No documentation was found of notification of the significant weight gain to the physician. 2. Patient #6 A review of the plan of care dated 03/20/24 to 05/18/24 showed a primary diagnosis of pneumonia and documented a skilled nurse frequency of two visits per week for two weeks, one visit per week for three weeks and one visit every other week for four weeks, a physical therapy frequency of on visit per week for one week, two visits per week for three weeks and one visit per week for four weeks, a occupation therapy frequency of one visit per week for eight weeks and the physician was to be notified of a pulse greater than 100. A skilled nurse assessment dated 03/22/24 documented a pulse of 110. The physician was faxed notification of the out of parameter pulse with no documented follow-up regarding the elevated pulse. A skilled nurse assessment dated 03/26/24 documented a pulse of 104. The physician was faxed notification of the out of parameter pulse with no documented follow-up regarding the elevated pulse. A physical therapy assessment dated 03/26/24 documented a pulse of 104. The physician was faxed notification of the out of parameter pulse with no documented follow-up regarding the elevated pulse. An occupational therapy assessment dated 03/27/24 documented a pulse of 105. The physician was faxed notification of the out of parameter pulse with no documented follow-up regarding the elevated pulse. A skilled nurse assessment dated 03/29/24 documented a pulse of 114. The physician was faxed notification of the out of parameter pulse with no documented follow-up regarding the elevated pulse. A skilled nurse assessment dated 04/02/24 documented a pulse of 110. The physician was faxed notification of the out of parameter pulse with no documented follow-up regarding the elevated pulse. A physical therapy assessment dated 04/02/24 documented a pulse of 108. The physician was faxed notification of the out of parameter pulse with no documented follow-up regarding the elevated pulse. An occupational therapy assessment dated 04/03/24 documented a pulse of 107. The physician was faxed notification of the out of parameter pulse with no documented follow-up regarding the elevated pulse. A physical therapy assessment dated 04/04/24 documented a pulse of 102. The physician was faxed notification of the out of parameter pulse with no documented follow-up regarding the elevated pulse. A skilled nurse assessment dated 04/08/24 documented a pulse of 110. The physician was faxed notification of the out of parameter pulse with no documented follow-up regarding the elevated pulse. An occupational therapy assessment dated 04/08/24 documented a pulse of 108. The physician was faxed notification of the out of parameter pulse with no documented follow-up regarding the elevated pulse. A physical therapy assessment dated 04/12/24 documented a pulse of 108. The physician was faxed notification of the out of parameter pulse with no documented follow-up regarding the elevated pulse. An occupational therapy assessment dated 04/15/24 documented a pulse of 111. The physician was faxed notification of the out of parameter pulse with no documented follow-up regarding the elevated pulse. A skilled nurse assessment dated 04/16/24 documented a pulse of 110. The physician was faxed notification of the out of parameter pulse with no documented follow-up regarding the elevated pulse. A physical therapy assessment dated 04/18/24 documented a pulse of 118. The physician was faxed notification of the out of parameter pulse with no documented follow-up regarding the elevated pulse. On 05/08/24 at 1:10 pm., Staff B stated: 1. the physician should have been notified of the 14 pound weight gain for Patient #5 and 2. staff should have followed up in regard to the consistent out of parameter pulse for Patient #6.”

    Rule G0962. Element-level.

The one inspection in the last three years
Inspections on record
DateVisitWhat the record says
May 8, 2024Recertification inspection2 deficiencies cited

Is it certified?

  • Medicare-certified home health agency since Dec 20, 1993.
  • Ownership: proprietary (for profit).
  • No deficiency on record in the last three years.
Source:

CMS, Home Health Care Agencies. Released Oct 21, 2026. Updated quarterly.

CMS, QCOR home health inspection reports. Released Oct 20, 2026. Updated monthly.

Has anything been proven against it?

  • CMS doesn’t publish fines or other penalties for home health agencies, so none are shown.
  • 0 deficiencies cited in the last three years came from inspections that included a complaint investigation.
Source:

CMS, QCOR home health inspection reports. Released Oct 20, 2026. Updated monthly.

Who does the caring?

  • Offers nursing care, physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech pathology and medical social services.
  • Doesn’t offer home health aide services.
  • CMS doesn’t publish staffing levels for home health agencies.
Source:

CMS, Home Health Care Agencies. Released Oct 21, 2026. Updated quarterly.

Who owns it?

  • AFAM Holding Co IV, LLC owns 100% directly since Apr 1, 2023.
  • 8 owners or officers are people: Peggy Rennels (managing employee (on the payroll)); Marcus Macip (corporate officer, 0%); Kimberly Seymour (corporate officer, 0%); Kimberly Seymour (managing employee (on the payroll), 0%); Joni Babineaux (corporate officer, 0%); Wendy Daigle (corporate director, 0%); Joshua Lee Proffitt (corporate officer); Amy Cormier (corporate officer, 0%).
  • No private-equity firm among the owners CMS lists.
  • No real-estate investment trust among the owners CMS lists.
Source:

CMS, Home Health Agency All Owners and Home Health Agency Enrollments. Released Sep 29, 2026. Updated quarterly.

Organisations CMS lists
OrganisationRoleShareSince
Unitedhealth Group IncorporatedOwns 5% or more through other companies100%Apr 1, 2023
AFAM Holding Co IV, LLCOwns 5% or more directly100%Apr 1, 2023
LHC Group Inc.Owns 5% or more through other companies100%Apr 1, 2013
Almost Family, Inc.Owns 5% or more through other companies100%Apr 1, 2023
National Health Industries, Inc.Owns 5% or more through other companies80%Dec 31, 2016
Afam Sub I LLCOwns 5% or more through other companies20%Apr 1, 2023

How do patients fare?

  • CMS rates its quality of patient care 3.5 of 5.
  • Patients rate it 5 of 5 in CMS’s patient survey (77 surveys completed): 90% rated it 9 or 10 out of 10, and 82% would definitely recommend it.
  • CMS compares it with the national rate: discharged to the community, the same; potentially preventable hospital stays, the same; potentially preventable readmissions after discharge, the same.
Source:

CMS, Home Health Care Agencies and Home Health Patient Survey. Released Oct 21, 2026. Updated quarterly.

Ratings and measures, as published
MeasureRating
Quality of patient care ratingCMS star rating, 1 to 5 in half stars3.5 of 5
Patient survey ratingCMS star rating from its survey of the agency’s patients, 1 to 55 of 5
Discharged to the communityCMS’s risk-adjusted rate, compared with the national rate81.33% (same as the national rate)
Potentially preventable hospital staysCMS’s risk-adjusted rate, compared with the national rate13.50% (same as the national rate)
Potentially preventable readmissions after dischargeCMS’s risk-adjusted rate, compared with the national rate4.01% (same as the national rate)

How does it compare nearby?

  • Of the 13 agencies CMS’s data show serving patients in ZIP code 73601, where this agency’s office is, 13 have a quality of patient care rating; the middle one is 4 of 5, and this one is rated 3.5 of 5.
Source:

CMS, Home Health ZIP Codes and Home Health Care Agencies. Released Oct 21, 2026. Updated quarterly.

What the record doesn’t say

  • CMS doesn’t publish fines or other penalties for home health agencies, so none are shown.
  • Only complaints that led to a citation appear; complaints that didn’t aren’t published.
  • QCOR says some of its home health reports are accurate or available only through May 19, 2021, because of a systems migration.
  • Many home health agencies are inspected by a private accrediting organisation instead of the state, and QCOR’s home health file doesn’t appear to include those inspections: no inspection on record here doesn’t mean none took place.

Sources

If you believe something here is wrong, a correction starts with the agency whose record this copies: CMS. CMS’s own record is on Care Compare. If Hearth Record copied something wrongly, it will fix it and log the correction publicly, with its date: how corrections work.

Source:

This copy of the record was made on Oct 24, 2026.

From the agency

The public record above comes first. Anything the agency adds will appear here, below it, and say who wrote it.

Replies

None. Replies aren’t open yet. When they open, the agency will be able to answer any finding for free, and the reply will show beside that finding, unedited and dated.

Paid listing

None. Paid listings aren’t open yet. When they open, anything paid for will say “Paid by the agency”, and paying will never change a finding, a rating or the order of results.

How to read a record

Four things every record does, shown on an example record made up for this guide.

An example record, made up for this guide

An example nursing home

Made up for this guide: no real place is shown

Not fully inspected in over two years (CMS flag)

11 health citations at the latest inspection cycle

The state average is 14.3.

Source:

CMS, State and US Averages and Health Deficiencies. Released Oct 28, 2026. Updated monthly.

From the homeNone yet. Replies and paid listings aren’t open, and when they open they will sit here, below the record.

1 of 4

Every fact names its source.

Who published it, when, and how often it changes sit beside each fact, with a link to the agency’s own file.

Sign in

A free account keeps your watch list, shortlists, comparisons and saved searches on every device, and can email you when something you watch changes. Browsing never needs one.