Not rated by CMS — ratings are suppressed for new or low-volume facilities.
The next survey window likely opens around March 2027
Estimate from public CMS data, current as of June 2026. Survey timing is at the state agency's discretion.
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Majestic Care Of Sheridan during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident with diabetes, hypertension, and dementia had physician orders for Accu-Chek blood glucose monitoring four times daily, with instructions to notify the provider for readings below 90 or above 350. The care plan required staff to obtain blood sugars as ordered and notify the physician of abnormal results. Review of the MAR showed multiple low and high blood sugar values documented as abnormal, yet marked with "N" indicating no physician notification. An LPN confirmed that an "N" entry meant the physician was not notified, and the Executive Director could not locate documentation of any notifications for these abnormal readings and acknowledged there was no facility policy for call orders and physician notification.
A resident with urinary incontinence, vascular dementia, and intellectual disability was repeatedly observed lying in bed with wet clothing and bedding and a strong urine odor, remaining wet for extended periods despite staff statements that residents were checked every two hours and that this resident had not refused care. On another occasion, the same resident was found with multiple soaked incontinence pads, a soaked brief, wet clothing, and wet bed linens, and the CNA initially did not check for incontinence when the resident was sleeping until prompted. The CNA reported routinely placing two incontinence briefs on the resident, and two briefs were observed in use, even though the care plan did not direct the use of more than one brief and there was no documentation of care refusals on the dates in question.
A resident with multiple diagnoses, including vascular dementia and a gastrostomy tube, had physician orders and a care plan requiring Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) during high-contact care. Despite posted EBP signage directing staff to wear gloves and gowns for activities such as changing briefs, linens, and providing hygiene, a CNA provided incontinence care using only gloves, allowing urine-soaked linens to contact their uniform and leaving and re-entering the room with the same contaminated gloves. Staff interviews and facility policy confirmed that gown and glove use was required for these activities under EBP.
A resident with a history of hypertension, hypotension, and atrial fibrillation received diltiazem and midodrine outside of the physician-ordered blood pressure parameters, and the physician was not notified when required. Nursing staff and the administrator confirmed that medications were administered despite vital signs being outside the prescribed limits, and documentation showed that notifications to the physician did not occur as ordered.
Two residents identified as at risk for injury related to smoking did not have current, quarterly smoking assessments completed as required by their care plans and facility policy. Both were observed smoking, and when records were reviewed, the facility was unable to provide up-to-date assessments for either individual, despite confirmation from leadership that such assessments were required.
Failure to Notify Physician of Abnormal Blood Glucose Readings
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to notify a physician of abnormal blood glucose readings as ordered for a resident with type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and dementia. The resident’s care plan, dated 4/2/25, identified risk for complications and symptoms of hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia and included an intervention to obtain blood sugars as ordered and to document and notify the physician of abnormal findings. A physician’s order, dated 4/3/25 and discontinued 4/2/26, directed staff to obtain Accu-Chek blood sugar readings four times daily and to notify the provider if the blood sugar was less than 90 or greater than 350. Review of the Medication Administration Record showed multiple abnormal blood sugar readings during the ordered period that were marked with “N” for no physician notification, including low readings of 85, 74, 80, 83, 82, and 84, and high readings of 368 and 367. Interviews revealed that when “N” was documented on the MAR, the physician would not have been notified, and the Executive Director was unable to find documentation of physician notification for the low blood sugar readings. The Executive Director also stated that if the physician had been in the building at the time of an abnormal reading, the nurse would have notified the physician and documented it in a progress note, but no such documentation was found. Additionally, the Executive Director reported that the facility did not have a policy regarding call orders and physician notification.
Failure to Provide Timely Incontinence Care and Improper Use of Multiple Briefs
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide timely incontinence care and appropriate ADL assistance to a resident with urinary incontinence, as well as the inappropriate use of multiple incontinence briefs. On one date, surveyors observed the resident lying in bed with visibly wet pants and a noticeable urine odor in the room at midday. Over two hours later, the resident’s pants remained wet, with the wet area only beginning to fade. The CNA assigned to the resident stated he checked residents every two hours and had last checked this resident before lunch, and later reported he had just changed the resident and found him wet. The resident’s clinical record showed diagnoses including benign prostatic hyperplasia without lower urinary tract symptoms, vascular dementia, and intellectual disability, and the care plan directed staff to assist with routine toileting, check routinely for incontinence, provide incontinence care as needed, and encourage the resident to allow staff assistance when incontinent. On another date, the same resident was observed lying in bed with at least two incontinence pads under him and a visible ring of urine around him on the bed. Later observations that day showed an even darker ring of urine and an additional lighter, drying ring, with the resident remaining in the same position and the bed still wet. The CNA reported he had last changed the resident earlier that morning and that the resident had not refused care. During an ADL care observation, the CNA initially stopped at the door when he saw the resident sleeping and did not check for incontinence until prompted by the surveyor. When prompted to educate the resident and request permission to provide care, the resident got up and allowed the CNA to change him. At that time, the resident had two soaked incontinence pads, a soaked brief, a soaked red shirt, and soaked bed sheets, all of which were changed; the CNA then placed two incontinence briefs on the resident. The CNA stated he typically placed two briefs on this resident, although the care plan did not direct staff to use two briefs, and the Executive Director later confirmed staff should not place two briefs on a resident unless care planned. Documentation for the relevant dates did not show any refusals of care in the point-of-care records or progress notes, despite staff statements that the resident had not refused care.
Failure to Follow Enhanced Barrier Precautions During High-Contact Care
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to implement ordered Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) for a resident requiring infection control measures. The resident’s clinical record showed diagnoses including benign prostatic hyperplasia without lower urinary tract symptoms, vascular dementia, and intellectual disability. A physician’s order dated 3/8/26 directed staff to utilize EBP during high-contact resident care activities every shift related to a gastrostomy tube, and a care plan dated 3/9/26 documented that the resident required EBP. Facility signage on the resident’s door instructed that everyone must cleanse their hands before entering and when leaving the room, and that providers and staff must wear gloves and a gown for specified high-contact care activities such as dressing, bathing, transferring, changing linens, providing hygiene, changing briefs or assisting with toileting, and device care including feeding tubes. On observation, a CNA provided incontinence care to the resident without following the EBP requirements. The CNA donned gloves but did not put on a gown while changing the resident’s urine-soaked brief, wet shirt, wet bed sheets, and wet pants. The urine-soaked bed sheet came into contact with the CNA’s uniform. After changing some linens, the CNA left the room carrying a dirty bag of linens while still wearing the same gloves, then re-entered the room with the same gloves and continued providing care, without changing gloves or wearing a gown at any time. In an interview, the CNA stated he usually wore a gown for care but forgot and acknowledged he should have worn one. Another CNA confirmed that staff should wear a gown and gloves when completing ADL care for a resident on EBP. The facility’s written policy on Contact Precautions, including EBP, specified that gown and glove use is required during high-contact resident care activities such as providing hygiene, changing linens, and changing briefs or assisting with toileting.
Failure to Follow Physician Orders for Medication Administration and Notification
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to follow physician's orders regarding medication administration and notification protocols for a resident with diagnoses including hypertension, hypotension, and atrial fibrillation. Specifically, the resident had orders for diltiazem to be held if systolic blood pressure (SBP) was below 90 or heart rate below 60, and for the physician to be notified if SBP was below 80. Despite these orders, diltiazem was administered multiple times when the resident's SBP was below the hold parameter, and the physician was not notified when SBP was below 80. Additionally, midodrine, which was to be held if SBP was above 120, was administered once when the SBP exceeded this threshold. Review of the Medication Administration Records (MAR) for February and March showed repeated instances where medications were given outside of the prescribed parameters, and documentation indicated that the physician was not notified as required. Interviews with nursing staff and the administrator confirmed that medications were administered despite vital signs being outside the ordered parameters, and that the required notifications to the physician did not occur. The facility's medication administration policy required medications to be administered as ordered and for staff to hold medications and notify the physician when vital signs were outside prescribed parameters, which was not followed in these instances.
Failure to Complete Required Quarterly Smoking Assessments
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that quarterly smoking assessments were completed for two residents who were identified as being at risk for injury related to smoking. Both residents were observed smoking in the designated area, and their care plans specifically required quarterly and as-needed smoking assessments. For one resident with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, malignant neoplasm of the laryngeal cartilage, and a tracheostomy, the last documented smoking assessment was completed several months prior, with no current assessment available at the time of review. Similarly, the second resident, who had diagnoses including lack of coordination, tobacco use, and alcohol-induced persisting dementia, also did not have a current smoking assessment on file, with the last one completed months earlier. When requested, the facility was unable to provide up-to-date smoking assessments for either resident, despite facility policy and care plans mandating quarterly completion. The Executive Director confirmed that these assessments were required on a quarterly basis. The facility's policy, effective at the time of the survey, reiterated the necessity for quarterly smoking assessments for all residents who smoke.
What surveyors are citing around you — mapped
All 10 risk areas, ranked with evidence
Repeat citations, what's rising near you, and quality measures — ranked so department heads know exactly where to look first.
Illustrative
What surveyors actually found near you
We read the 524 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 2 immediate-jeopardy cases — and tell you exactly what happened, in plain English, matched to your record.
Resident with a documented fall history left unattended on the patio; found on the ground with a hip fracture.
Walk-in cooler logs missing for 12 days; expired supplements in the medication room fridge.
Illustrative
A prioritized, do-first checklist
Every risk area becomes concrete audit steps drawn from real citations at facilities like yours — run them this week, before your window opens.
Illustrative
Risk indicators are statistical estimates from public CMS data — not predictions, findings, or compliance advice.
Nursing homes near Sheridan
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wellbrooke Of Westfield | 6.8 mi | — | 2 | 0 |
| Maple Park Village | 7.7 mi | — | 8 | 0 |
| Copper Trace Health & Living Community | 9.5 mi | — | 3 | 0 |
| Bridgewater Healthcare Center | 11.1 mi | — | 3 | 0 |
| Retreat At The Stratford, The | 11.3 mi | — | 6 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Majestic Care Of Sheridan.
100% money-back within 48 hours.
Trusted data, never guesswork. Every citation, penalty, rating and Plan of Correction on this page is sourced from public CMS records (latest release August 2026) and official state health department websites.