SHERWOOD MANOR NURSING HOME
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Sherwood Manor Nursing Home has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. Ranking #264 out of 282 facilities in Oklahoma places it in the bottom half, and at #32 out of 33 within Tulsa County, it is among the least favorable options available. Although the facility is trending toward improvement, with issues decreasing from 12 in 2024 to 3 in 2025, there are still alarming problems, such as a critical incident where a staff member engaged in verbal and physical abuse towards a resident. Staffing is a mixed bag; while turnover is exceptionally low at 0%, the facility has less RN coverage than 95% of Oklahoma facilities, meaning residents may not receive the necessary medical oversight. Additionally, the facility has incurred $121,529 in fines, which raises concerns about repeated compliance issues.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Oklahoma
- #264/282
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- Turnover data not reported for this facility.
- Penalties ⚠ Watch
- $121,529 in fines. Higher than 90% of Oklahoma facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 7 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Oklahoma. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 30 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in fire safety.
The Bad
Below Oklahoma average (2.6)
Significant quality concerns identified by CMS
Well above median ($33,413)
Significant penalties indicating serious issues
The Ugly 30 deficiencies on record
Apr 2025
3 deficiencies
2 IJ
CRITICAL
(J)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** On 04/01/25, an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation was determined to exist related to the facility's failure to protect Resident ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CRITICAL
(J)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Deficiency F0740
(Tag F0740)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** On 04/01/25, an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation was determined to exist related to the facility's failure to ensure antipsycho...
Read full inspector narrative →
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
Laboratory Services
(Tag F0770)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure labs were obtained as ordered by the physician for 1 (#1) of 3 sampled residents who were reviewed for labs.
The DON identified 71 r...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2024
1 deficiency
1 IJ
CRITICAL
(J)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** On 09/26/24, an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation was determined to exist due to the facility failing to assess, monitor, and in...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2024
8 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a care plan was reviewed for one (#21) of one sampled reside...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure treatments provided for non-pressure wounds had been ordered by the physician for one (#4) of two sampled residents wh...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0692
(Tag F0692)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure weights were obtained per the physician's order for one (#8) of three sampled residents who were reviewed for nutrition.
The DON ide...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Tube Feeding
(Tag F0693)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure enteral formula was administered as ordered by the physician for one (#53) of one sampled residents who were reviewed ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0698
(Tag F0698)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure pre and post dialysis assessments were conducted for one (#8) of one sampled residents who were reviewed for dialysis.
The DON ident...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0909
(Tag F0909)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to assess and inspect bed rails to identify any risks of entrapment for one (#33) of one sampled resident reviewed for bedrails....
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Resident #33 had diagnoses which included type two diabetes.
On 09/03/24 at 8:57 a.m., Resident #33 was observed in bed with...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
5. Resident #123 had diagnoses which included urinary retention and acute kidney failure.
On 09/04/24 at 1:41 p.m., Resident #123 was observed wheeling into their room, with the catheter bag hanging d...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2024
3 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 F0583
(Tag F0583)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure privacy curtains were utilized during personal care for one (#1) of three sampled residents reviewed for privacy.
The ...
Read full inspector narrative →
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
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to implement a pressure ulcer policy to fully assess and monitor a new pressure wound for one (#1) of three sampled residents re...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
📢 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
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure allegations of abuse were reported to all required state agencies within the required time for two, (#1, and #2) of three sampled re...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2023
9 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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident with a feeding tube was treated wit...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure the laundry room was kept clean and in good repair.
The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form, dated 08/01/23, documented ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to revise a care plan for a new medication for one (#57) of five sampled residents reviewed for unnecessary medications.
The Resident Census a...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure wound care treatments were completed as ordere...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a transfer was performed safely for one (#24) of four sampled residents reviewed for accidents.
The Resident Census a...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Antibiotic Stewardship
(Tag F0881)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to assess a resident for an infection using standardized tools and criteria for the initiation of an antibiotic for one (#19) of five sampled ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0583
(Tag F0583)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to protect resident's personal medical information during medication pass and treatments.
The Resident Census and Conditions of ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Incontinence Care
(Tag F0690)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a physician order was obtained for a catheter ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
2. On 08/02/23 at 08:07 a.m., CMA #1 was observed during medication pass. The CMA was observed popping medications from blister packs while keeping their index and middle fingers on either side of the...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2021
6 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Transfer Requirements
(Tag F0622)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to provide discharge instructions to a receiving car...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0943
(Tag F0943)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation and interview, it was determined the facility failed to provide training related to abuse prohibition on hire for one (housekeeper #1) of five new employees whose employee records...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0570
(Tag F0570)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation and interview, it was determined the facility failed to have the required surety bond for the residents trust fund for two (#9 and #29) of two residents reviewed for personal fund...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0757
(Tag F0757)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined the facility failed to monitor medications with laboratory...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined the facility failed to meet standards of practice for transmission based precautions related to the performance of a finger stick ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0921)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, it was determined the facility failed to maintain window screens for six (rooms 1, 3, 4, 5, ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
- "What safeguards are in place to prevent abuse and neglect?"
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: Federal abuse finding, 3 life-threatening violation(s), $121,529 in fines, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 30 deficiencies on record, including 3 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $121,529 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Oklahoma. Major compliance failures.
- • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Sherwood Manor's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns SHERWOOD MANOR NURSING HOME an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much below average nationally. Within Oklahoma, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.
How is Sherwood Manor Staffed?
CMS rates SHERWOOD MANOR NURSING HOME's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes.
What Have Inspectors Found at Sherwood Manor?
State health inspectors documented 30 deficiencies at SHERWOOD MANOR NURSING HOME during 2021 to 2025. These included: 3 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 27 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.
Who Owns and Operates Sherwood Manor?
SHERWOOD MANOR NURSING HOME is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 102 certified beds and approximately 71 residents (about 70% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in TULSA, Oklahoma.
How Does Sherwood Manor Compare to Other Oklahoma Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Oklahoma, SHERWOOD MANOR NURSING HOME's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.6 and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Sherwood Manor?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "What safeguards and monitoring systems are in place to protect residents from abuse or neglect?" "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations, the substantiated abuse finding on record, and the below-average staffing rating.
Is Sherwood Manor Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, SHERWOOD MANOR NURSING HOME has documented safety concerns. The facility has 1 substantiated abuse finding (meaning confirmed case of resident harm by staff or other residents). Inspectors have issued 3 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 1-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Oklahoma. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.
Do Nurses at Sherwood Manor Stick Around?
SHERWOOD MANOR NURSING HOME has not reported staff turnover data to CMS. Staff turnover matters because consistent caregivers learn residents' individual needs, medications, and preferences. When staff frequently change, this institutional knowledge is lost. Families should ask the facility directly about their staff retention rates and average employee tenure.
Was Sherwood Manor Ever Fined?
SHERWOOD MANOR NURSING HOME has been fined $121,529 across 2 penalty actions. This is 3.5x the Oklahoma average of $34,294. Fines at this level are uncommon and typically indicate a pattern of serious deficiencies, repeated violations, or failure to correct problems promptly. CMS reserves penalties of this magnitude for facilities that pose significant, documented risk to resident health or safety. Families should request specific documentation of what issues led to these fines and what systemic changes have been implemented.
Is Sherwood Manor on Any Federal Watch List?
SHERWOOD MANOR NURSING HOME 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.