Majestic Care of Beckley
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Majestic Care of Beckley has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating poor performance with significant concerns. Ranking #107 out of 122 facilities in West Virginia places it in the bottom half, and it is the lowest-ranked option in Raleigh County. The facility is experiencing a worsening trend, with reported issues increasing from 2 in 2023 to 12 in 2024. Staffing is a weak point, with a rating of 1 out of 5 stars and a turnover rate of 43%, which is slightly below the state average but still concerning. Furthermore, the facility has been fined $10,033, which is average for the state, and it has less RN coverage than 87% of West Virginia facilities, potentially affecting the quality of care. Specific incidents noted in inspections include a resident being physically restrained without proper justification, which can lead to psychological harm. Additionally, some residents received unnecessary tuberculosis tests, indicating lapses in medical oversight. Food safety was also a concern, with multiple instances of spoiled food found in the kitchen, which could pose health risks to residents. Overall, while there are some strengths, such as a good quality measure rating, the weaknesses are significant and should be carefully considered by families.
- Trust Score
- F
- In West Virginia
- #107/122
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 43% turnover. Near West Virginia's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ⚠ Watch
- $10,033 in fines. Higher than 97% of West Virginia facilities. Major compliance failures.
- Skilled Nurses ○ Average
- Each resident gets 34 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for West Virginia. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 36 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-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 West Virginia average of 48%
Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Below West Virginia average (2.7)
Significant quality concerns identified by CMS
Near West Virginia avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
The Ugly 36 deficiencies on record
Aug 2024
12 deficiencies
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Deficiency F0604
(Tag F0604)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** .
Based on observation, record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure each resident was free from physical r...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 staff interview, the facility failed to ensure each resident was treated with dignity and respect. Resident #48 visibly soiled for an extended period of time...
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 staff interview the facility failed to ensure the residents were provided a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment. A wall was in poor repair in a residents room....
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
.
Based on observation, record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure each resident was free from abuse and neglect by leaving Resident #48 visibly soiled for an extended period of...
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
Investigate Abuse
(Tag F0610)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** .
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to properly investigate an allegation of injury of unknown ori...
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 record review and staff interview the facility failed to ensure the admission Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASSR) contained all pertinent diagnoses. This was true for one (1)...
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 resident interview, staff interview and observation, the facility failed to update and implement a person-centered comprehensive care plan to meet the resident preferences and goals, and addr...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0676
(Tag F0676)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** .
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident did not have an Activities of Daily Livin...
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 and staff interview, the facility failed to provide Actiity of Daily Living (ADL) care for dependent residents, by leaving Resident #48 soiled for an extended period of time. Th...
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
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
.
Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to ensure residents did not receive a second purified protein derivative test (PPD) when it was not warranted. This is true for five (5...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
.
Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the food was stored in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. This was identified during the long ter...
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
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
.
Based on observation and staff interview the facility failed to maintain an effective infection control program to prevent spread of disease and infections by not properly identifying Enhanced Barri...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2023
2 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
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 and staff interview, the facility failed to provide a dignified dining experience for four (4) of 50 reside...
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
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and staff interview the facility failed to provide a safe and comfortable homelike environment by not compl...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2022
15 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 and staff interview the facility failed to provide a dignified dining experience for Resident #28 when administering medications while the resident was eating in the dining room...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** .
Based on record review, facility documentation review, staff interview and resident interview, the facility neglected to use a...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
.
Based on record review, resident interview and staff interview the facility failed to report an allegation of emotional abuse within the appropriate timeframe. The failed practice was true for one (...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Investigate Abuse
(Tag F0610)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
.
Based on record review, resident interview and staff interview the facility failed to investigate an allegation of emotional abuse. The failed practice was true for one (1) of three (3) Residents re...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
.
Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a complete and accurate Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for one (1) of 20 residents in the long-term care survey s...
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 medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the development of the comprehensive care plan for one (1) of one (1) residents reviewed for the care area of elopem...
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 medical record review and staff interview the facility failed to revise a comprehensive care plan to include use of hipsters as a safety intervention for the problem area of falls for Resid...
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 medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice. This was discovered for...
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, resident interview and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the resident enviroment of which the facility had control was free from accident hazards. This was a rando...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
.
Based on observation and staff interview the facility failed to maintain appropriate storage procedures for a bilevel positive airway pressure device (BiPap) mask for Resident #43. This was a random...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0697
(Tag F0697)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** .
Based on record review, staff interview and resident interview the facility failed to provide pain management to a resident wh...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0804
(Tag F0804)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
.
Based on observations and staff interviews the facility failed to serve foods at appetizing temperatures. Test trays temperatures revealed unacceptable temperatures for all the foods being tested. T...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0810
(Tag F0810)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
.
Based on observation, record review, and staff interview the facility failed to provide appropriate assistive device to resident #21 (small maroon spoon) to maintain his ability to independently eat...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
.
The facility failed to store, prepare. distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service. During the kitchen tour it was discovered food was not dated after openin...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** .
Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to ensure a resident's medication administration record accurat...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2019
7 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0637
(Tag F0637)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** .
Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to complete a significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS...
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 medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to revise the comprehensive care plan for one (1) of 20 residents in the long-term care survey sample. Resident #55's comprehe...
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 medical record review, staff interview, and observation, the facility failed to ensure residents receive treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice for two (2)...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0760
(Tag F0760)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
.
Based on medical record review, staff interview, and observation, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from significant medical errors for one (1) of three (3) residents observed during...
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 medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to send a copy of the discharge notice to the ombudsma...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** .
Based on record review, review of the resident assessment instrument (RAI) manual and staff interview the facility failed to e...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
.
Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan for four (4) of 20 residents in the long-term care survey sample. Resident #54's comprehe...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "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
- • 43% turnover. Below West Virginia's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: Federal abuse finding, 1 harm violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 36 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
- • $10,033 in fines. Above average for West Virginia. Some compliance problems on record.
- • Grade F (18/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Majestic Care Of Beckley's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns Majestic Care of Beckley an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much below average nationally. Within West Virginia, 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 Majestic Care Of Beckley Staffed?
CMS rates Majestic Care of Beckley's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 43%, compared to the West Virginia average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Majestic Care Of Beckley?
State health inspectors documented 36 deficiencies at Majestic Care of Beckley during 2019 to 2024. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm and 35 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Majestic Care Of Beckley?
Majestic Care of Beckley is owned by a government entity. Government-operated facilities are typically run by state, county, or municipal agencies. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 199 certified beds and approximately 49 residents (about 25% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in BECKLEY, West Virginia.
How Does Majestic Care Of Beckley Compare to Other West Virginia Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in West Virginia, Majestic Care of Beckley's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.7, staff turnover (43%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Majestic Care Of Beckley?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "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?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" These questions are particularly relevant given the substantiated abuse finding on record and the below-average staffing rating.
Is Majestic Care Of Beckley Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, Majestic Care of Beckley has documented safety concerns. The facility has 1 substantiated abuse finding (meaning confirmed case of resident harm by staff or other residents). The facility has a 1-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in West Virginia. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.
Do Nurses at Majestic Care Of Beckley Stick Around?
Majestic Care of Beckley has a staff turnover rate of 43%, which is about average for West Virginia 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 Majestic Care Of Beckley Ever Fined?
Majestic Care of Beckley has been fined $10,033 across 1 penalty action. This is below the West Virginia average of $33,179. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.
Is Majestic Care Of Beckley on Any Federal Watch List?
Majestic Care of Beckley 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.