SHERIDAN HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Sheridan Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center has a Trust Grade of B, indicating a good standard of care that is solid, though not outstanding. In Arkansas, it ranks #79 out of 218 facilities, placing it in the top half, and it's the only option in Grant County, ranking #1 of 1. The facility is improving, with issues decreasing from 14 in 2024 to 4 in 2025, and it has a staffing rating of 4 out of 5 stars, with a turnover rate of 43%, which is better than the state average. Notably, there were no fines issued, suggesting compliance with regulations; however, some concerns were noted, such as residents not receiving personal mail on Saturdays and improper food storage practices that could lead to health risks. While the facility generally has good RN coverage and quality measures, it still faces some significant areas for improvement, particularly in ensuring proper resident services and food safety protocols.
- Trust Score
- B
- In Arkansas
- #79/218
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 43% turnover. Near Arkansas's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Arkansas facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 28 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Arkansas. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 21 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
-
5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (43%)
5 points below Arkansas average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Near Arkansas avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 21 deficiencies on record
Apr 2025
4 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0602
(Tag F0602)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to protect a resident's right to be free from misappropriation of resident ' s property, as evidenced by a medication...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations, interviews, and facility digital thermometer readings, the facility failed to maintain rehab resident rooms and the rehab hallway at a comfortable temperature level for resident...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the Ombudsman was notified of residents transferred from the...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0838
(Tag F0838)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the minimum requirements were addressed in the facility assessment, as evidenced by, the medical director was not actively involved ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2024
14 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff complied with a resident's request to use the bathroom to promote dignity for 1 (Resident #6) of 13 (Residents #6...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0553
(Tag F0553)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents were invited and/or assisted to exercise their right to participate in development of their person-centered plans of care,...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Assessments
(Tag F0636)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) for 1 (Resident #19) of 1 sampled resident who had a diagnosis of a mental disorder. The finding...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0637
(Tag F0637)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment was completed within 14 days after a decline in activities of daily living (A...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure comprehensive care plans were developed to address the resident's insulin injection order to ensure staff were aware of the required...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure nail care services were regularly provided to promote good personal hygiene and grooming for 1 (Resident #6) of 16 (Res...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Incontinence Care
(Tag F0690)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #19 received proper incontinence care to prevent the potential for skin breakdown, poor hygiene, and/or infect...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0700
(Tag F0700)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure bed rails were utilized only after an assessment for entrapment risk was conducted and documented for 1 (Resident #60)...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0725
(Tag F0725)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure call lights were answered in a timely manner to ensure resident safety and care needs were met. The findings are:
1. R...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure care plans were reviewed and revised at least quarterly and/or when residents' care needs changed, as evidence by failure to revise ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0805
(Tag F0805)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure pureed food items were blended to a smooth, lump free consistency to minimize the risk of choking or other complications for those res...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0576
(Tag F0576)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents received personal mail on Saturdays. This failed practice had the potential to affect all 60 residents who resided in the...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure potential frozen meat items were not stored above frozen packages of food items; cartons of pasteurized eggs were not stored above but...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff used proper hand hygiene when assisting resident during meal service; laundry staff were properly trained to pro...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2022
3 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Assessments
(Tag F0636)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on Interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the Minimum Data Set (MDS) was coded correctly to meet the residents needs for 1 (R #22) of 15 (R #1, R #11, R #14, R #16, R #2...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0645
(Tag F0645)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure that a Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review [PASARR] Level I and Level II was in place in the Medical Record, a...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure that dryer lint traps were cleaned of excess buildup to minimize potential for fire. The failed practice had the ability to affect 52 r...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • No major safety red flags. No abuse findings, life-threatening violations, or SFF status.
- • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Arkansas facilities.
- • 43% turnover. Below Arkansas's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • 21 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
About This Facility
What is Sheridan Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns SHERIDAN HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER an overall rating of 4 out of 5 stars, which is considered above average nationally. Within Arkansas, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.
How is Sheridan Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center Staffed?
CMS rates SHERIDAN HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 43%, compared to the Arkansas average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Sheridan Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center?
State health inspectors documented 21 deficiencies at SHERIDAN HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER during 2022 to 2025. These included: 21 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates Sheridan Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center?
SHERIDAN HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by SOUTHERN ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 121 certified beds and approximately 64 residents (about 53% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in SHERIDAN, Arkansas.
How Does Sheridan Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center Compare to Other Arkansas Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Arkansas, SHERIDAN HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (43%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Sheridan Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?"
Is Sheridan Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, SHERIDAN HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 4-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Arkansas. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.
Do Nurses at Sheridan Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center Stick Around?
SHERIDAN HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER has a staff turnover rate of 43%, which is about average for Arkansas nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.
Was Sheridan Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center Ever Fined?
SHERIDAN HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.
Is Sheridan Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center on Any Federal Watch List?
SHERIDAN HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER is not on any federal watch list. The most significant is the Special Focus Facility (SFF) program, which identifies the bottom 1% of nursing homes nationally based on persistent, serious quality problems. Not being on this list means the facility has avoided the pattern of deficiencies that triggers enhanced federal oversight. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review the facility's inspection history directly.