Hearth Record

Haven Home Health & Hospice

A home health agency in Norman, Oklahoma 73069

4211 28th Ave NW Ste 111, Norman, Oklahoma 73069. (405) 455-2275.

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 3 deficiencies in 1 month of the last 36. Last cited Jan 2025. Most serious: Standard-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 Jan 29, 2025: a recertification inspection.

3 deficiencies cited in the last three years.

Source:

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

When those deficiencies happened

3 deficiencies in 1 month of the last 36. Last cited Jan 2025. Most serious: Standard-level. The last 3 years, to Oct 24, 2026.

3 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.

Jan 29, 2025: recertification inspection3 deficiencies
  • Plan Of Care

    The inspectors’ words, 215 words

    “Plan of care CFR(s): 484.60(a)(1) Each patient must receive the home health services that are written in an individualized plan of care that identifies patient-specific measurable outcomes and goals, and which is established, periodically reviewed, and signed by a doctor of medicine, osteopathy, or podiatry acting within the scope of his or her state license, certification, or registration. If a physician or allowed practitioner refers a patient under a plan of care that cannot be completed until after an evaluation visit, the physician or allowed practitioner is consulted to approve additions or modifications to the original plan. This Standard is not met as evidenced by: Based on record review and staff interview, the agency failed to develop a plan care to outline services provided for two (Patient #6 and 11) of 13 patients. Patient #6 A review of the clinical record showed an admission date of 01/18/25 with no plan of care having been developed as of 01/30/25 (twelve after admission to the agency). Patient #11 A review of the clinical record showed an admission date of 01/17/25 with no plan of care having been developed as of 01/30/25 (thirteen days after admission to the agency). On 01/29/25 at 1:10 pm., Staff D stated there was no plan of care for Patients #6 and 11.”

    Rule G0572. Standard-level.

  • Plan Of Care Must Include The Following

    The inspectors’ words, 497 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 was developed for eight (Patients #1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 12) of 13 patients reviewed. Patient #1 A review of the plan of care dated 10/18/24 to 12/16/24 showed a primary diagnosis of hypertensive heart disease with heart failure with no patient specific individualized interventions or goals developed for the management of the primary diagnosis. Patient #3 A review of the plan of care dated 12/09/24 to 02/06/25 showed a primary diagnosis of hypertensive heart and chronic kidney disease with heart failure with no patient specific individualized interventions or goals developed for the management of the primary diagnosis. Patient #4 A review of the plan of care dated 10/18/24 to 12/16/24 showed a primary diagnosis of diabetes mellitus type II with no patient specific individualized interventions or goals developed for the management of the primary diagnosis. Patient #5 A review of the plan of care dated 01/18/25 to 03/18/25 showed a primary diagnosis of dementia with no patient specific individualized interventions or goals developed for the management of the primary diagnosis. Patient #7 A review of the plan of care dated 11/13/24 to 01/11/25 showed a primary diagnosis of malignant neoplasm of lower lobe, right bronchus or lung with no patient specific individualized interventions or goals developed for the management of the primary diagnosis. Patient #8 A review of the plan of care dated 10/28/24 to 12/26/24 showed a primary diagnosis of polyarthritis with no patient specific individualized interventions or goals developed for the management of the primary diagnosis. Patient #12 A review of the plan of care dated 11/30/24 to 01/28/25 showed a primary diagnosis of infectious gastroenteritis and colitis with no patient specific individualized interventions or goals developed for the management of the primary diagnosis. On 01/29/25 at 2:00 pm., Staff D stated the plan of care for Patients #1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 12 were not patient specific and individualized for the management of the primary diagnosis.”

    Rule G0574. Element-level.

  • Promptly Alert Relevant Physician Of Changes

    The inspectors’ words, 515 words

    “Promptly alert relevant physician of changes CFR(s): 484.60(c)(1) The HHA must promptly alert the relevant physician(s) or allowed practitioner(s) to any changes in the patient’s condition or needs that suggest that outcomes are not being achieved and/or that the plan of care should be altered. This Element is not met as evidenced by: Based on record review and interview, the agency failed to: 1. notify the physician of significant weight changes for one (Patient #3) of 13 patients and 2. promptly notify the physician of pain levels outside of ordered parameters for one (Patient #8) of 13 patients. 1. Patient #3 A review of the plan of care dated 12/09/24 to 02/06/25 showed a skilled nurse frequency of one visit per week for nine weeks and documented a primary diagnosis of hypertensive heart disease and chronic kidney disease with heart failure. A review of the clinical records showed the following: A skilled nurse assessment dated 12/17/24 documented a weight of 214 pounds for the week of 12/15/24 to 12/21/24. A skilled nurse assessment dated 12/26/24 documented a weight of 204 pounds (a ten-pound weight loss) for the week of 12/22/24 to 12/28/24 with no documentation of physician notification of a significant weight loss. A skilled nurse assessment dated 12/30/24 documented a weight of 216 pounds (a twelve-pound weight gain) for the week of 12/29/24 to 01/04/25 with no documentation of physician notification of a significant weight gain. 2. Patient #8 A plan of care dated 10/28/24 to 12/26/24 showed a skilled nurse frequency of one visit per week for nine weeks and documented the physician was to be notified of a pain level greater than 5 on the classic 1-10 pain scale. A review of the clinical record showed the following: A skilled nurse assessment dated 11/07/24 documented a pain level of 6 on the classic 1-10 pain scale with no physician notification of the pain level exceeding the ordered parameter. A skilled nurse assessment dated 11/14/24 documented a pain level of 6 on the classic 1-10 pain scale with no physician notification of the pain level exceeding the ordered parameter. A skilled nurse assessment dated 11/22/24 documented a pain level of 6 on the classic 1-10 pain scale with no physician notification of the pain level exceeding the ordered parameter. A skilled nurse assessment dated 11/27/24 documented a pain level of 6 on the classic 1-10 pain scale with no physician notification of the pain level exceeding the ordered parameter. A skilled nurse assessment dated 12/04/24 documented a pain level of 6 on the classic 1-10 pain scale with no physician notification of the pain level exceeding the ordered parameter. A skilled nurse assessment dated 12/18/24 documented a pain level of 6 on the classic 1-10 pain scale with no physician notification of the pain level exceeding the ordered parameter. On 01/29/25 at 1:55 pm., Staff D stated: 1. the physician should have been notified of the significant weight loss and weight gain for Patient #3 and 2. the physician was not notified of the pain levels exceeding the ordered parameters for Patient #8.”

    Rule G0590. Element-level.

The one inspection in the last three years
Inspections on record
DateVisitWhat the record says
Jan 29, 2025Recertification inspection3 deficiencies cited

Is it certified?

  • Medicare-certified home health agency since Apr 29, 2019.
  • 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, medical social services and 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?

  • 4 owners or officers are people: Lori Beard (owns 5% or more directly, 50%); Tra C Pippin (owns 5% or more directly, 50%); Tara Anderson (managing employee (on the payroll), 50%); Robyn Lovecchio (managing employee (on the payroll), 50%).
  • 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.

How do patients fare?

  • CMS rates its quality of patient care 3 of 5.
  • Patients rate it 4 of 5 in CMS’s patient survey (147 surveys completed): 84% rated it 9 or 10 out of 10, and 81% 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 of 5
Patient survey ratingCMS star rating from its survey of the agency’s patients, 1 to 54 of 5
Discharged to the communityCMS’s risk-adjusted rate, compared with the national rate80.99% (same as the national rate)
Potentially preventable hospital staysCMS’s risk-adjusted rate, compared with the national rate11.46% (same as the national rate)
Potentially preventable readmissions after dischargeCMS’s risk-adjusted rate, compared with the national rate3.96% (same as the national rate)

How does it compare nearby?

  • Of the 51 agencies CMS’s data show serving patients in ZIP code 73069, where this agency’s office is, 47 have a quality of patient care rating; the middle one is 4 of 5, and this one is rated 3 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.