Carlyle Senior Care of Aiken
123 Dupont Dr Northeast, Aiken, SC 29801 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 86 certified beds · (803) 648-0434 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- CMS has flagged it for abuse
- it has abuse, neglect, or exploitation citations (F0600, F0602) — most recent Apr 2026
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
- inspectors recorded 1 serious finding as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
- its payroll-based staffing score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (1/5)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (1/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 1 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 1 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing rating runs 3 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the staffing score rests on the facility's own payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 1 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 1 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 2 to 1 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 22.2% | 11.9% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 8.9% | 6.3% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.9% | 0.6% | 0.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 2.4% | 1.3% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 3.1% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 1.7% | 3.2% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 11.0% | 12.7% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 20.6% | 21.0% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 96.4% | 90.6% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.3% | 5.1% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 13.9% | 16.7% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 39.6% | 15.3% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 24.3% | 24.3% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 15.2% | 13.9% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 3.04 | 2.04 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 3.61 | 1.84 | 1.80 | worse |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
Met the expected recovery: 42.9% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 28 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.25 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 33% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 4% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.8%CMS range 7.2–16.3 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 42.9% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 39.3% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 32.1% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 2.3% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.03 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 86 beds and averages 73.1 residents a day — about 85% occupied, or roughly 13 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.10 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.37 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.57 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.78 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.24 on weekdays — 11% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.38 to 0.33 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 44% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2026-04-21 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of the facility policy, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure Resident (R)3 remained free from sexual abuse. Specifically, on 04/02/26, the facility failed to protect R3, a cognitively impaired female who lacked the capacity to consent, from sexual contact initiated by R2.On 04/21/26 at 3:00 PM, the State Agency (SA) determined that the facility's non-compliance with one or more federal health, safety, and/or quality regulations has caused or was likely to cause serious injury, serious harm, serious impairment, or death. On 04/21/26 at 3:00 PM, the survey team provided the Administrator with a copy of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) Template and informed the facility IJ existed as of 04/02/26. The IJ was related to 42 CFR S483.12 Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation. On 04/21/26 at 7:00 PM, the facility provided an acceptable IJ Removal Plan. On 04/21/26 at 7:20 PM, the survey team validated the facility's corrective…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2025-10-15 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of facility policy, resident records, and interviews, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision to prevent Resident (R)1 from eloping. Specifically, on 10/13/25 R1 had a successful elopement from the facility where he was found across the street, placing the resident at serious risk for injury or harm.On 10/15/25 at 2:15 PM the State Agency (SA) determined that the facility's non-compliance with one or more federal health, safety, and/or quality regulations has caused or was likely to cause serious injury, serious harm, serious impairment, or death.On 10/15/25 at 2:15 PM, the Facility Administrator was notified that the failure to protect R1 from having a successful elopement from the facility constituted Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) at F689.On 10/15/25 at 2:15 PM, the survey team provided the Facility Administrator with a copy of the Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) Template and informed the facility IJ existed as of 10/13/25. The IJ was related to S483.25 Quality of Care at F689: Free of Accident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-09-12 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to honor a resident's right to be free from unnecessary physical restraint for one of three residents (Resident (R)5) reviewed for abuse out of seven sampled residents. This had the potential to effect residents functional status.Findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled Resident Rights dated 04/2025 revealed that the facility will inform the resident both orally and in writing, in a language that the resident understands, of his or her rights and all rules and regulations governing resident conduct and responsibilities during the stay in the facility. The resident has the right to a dignified existence, self-determination, and communication with and access to persons and services inside and outside the facility. The resident has a right to be treated with respect and dignity, including the right to be free from any physical or chemical restraints imposed for purposes of discipline or convenience and not required to treat the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-09-12 · tag F0640 — isolatedEncode each resident’s assessment data and transmit these data to the State within 7 days of assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, interview, document review and review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) manual, the facility failed to ensure timely completion and submission of the Minimum Data Set Assessments (MDSs) for one of one (Resident (R) 81) reviewed out of 21 sampled residents. This failure had the potential to adversely affect care planning and care provision or payment to other facilities for any residents that may not have had a discharge assessment transmitted.Findings include:Review of the October 2024 RAI Manual revealed, . MDS assessments for Significant Change must be completed no later than 14 days from the ARD and no later than 14 days from the determination date of the significant change. MDS assessments for Entry the MDS completion date must be no later than seven days from the event date. and . Comprehensive assessments must be transmitted electronically within 14 days of the completion of the MDS. For Entry information must be transmitted within 14 days of the event date.Review of R81's…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-09-12 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interviews, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure that urinary catheter care was performed for one of one resident (R )65) reviewed for catheters and urinary tract infection. This failure placed the resident at risk for transmission of infection to the urinary tract.Findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled, Catheter Care dated 02/17/24 revealed, .Male:.16. With a new moistened cloth, starting at the urinary meatus moving down, cleanse the shaft of the penis.Review of the Census tab in R65's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including urinary tract infection (UTI) and neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder.Review of R65's Orders tab of the EMR revealed a physician's order dated 07/29/25 which documented, Catheter-Provide catheter care every shift.During catheter care observation with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA)1 and Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 1 on 09/11/25 at 9:06 AM, R65 was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-09-12 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's nasal cannula was stored properly when not in use for one of two residents reviewed for oxygen therapy (Resident (R) 65) out of a total sample of 21 residents. This failure had the potential to increase the risk of a respiratory infection for residents receiving respiratory therapy.Findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled Oxygen Safety dated 04/2025 revealed, it is the policy of this facility to provide a safe environment for residents, staff, and the public. This policy addresses the use and storage of oxygen and oxygen equipment.Review of R65's admission Record located in the electronic medical record (EMR) under the Profile tab revealed the resident was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis which included quadriplegia.Review of R65's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 08/06/25 in the EMR under the MDS tab revealed a Brief Interview…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-09-12 · tag F0732 — isolatedPost nurse staffing information every day.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure the daily nurse staffing information was posted in a manner that residents and visitors had access to the information. This deficient practice has the potential to affect all residents and visitors.Findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled Nurse Staffing Posting Information dated May 2025 revealed, . It is the policy of this facility to make nurse staffing information readily available in a readable format to residents. staff and visitors at any given time.Upon entrance to the facility on [DATE] at 9:00 AM, the daily nurse staffing information was observed posted on a glass bulletin board, with multiple notices behind it inside the case, approximately six feet high. The posting was current for the day, all three shifts, however, was not readable, or accessible, for residents in a wheelchair or with vision problems.Observations on the subsequent survey days of 09/11/25 at 2:30 PM, and 09/12/25 at 10:00 AM…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-08-12 · tag F0602 — failed to protect residents from theft of their belongings — isolatedProtect each resident from the wrongful use of the resident's belongings or money.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of facility policy, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure Resident (R)2 was free from misappropriation for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for abuse. Specifically, R2's wallet, which contained his debit card, was allegedly stolen and used at multiple places. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation with a reviewed/revised date of 01/20/25, documented under definitions: Misappropriation of Resident Property means the deliberate misplacement, exploitation, or wrongful, temporary or permanent, use of a resident's belongings or money without the resident's consent.Review of R2's Face Sheet revealed R2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including but not limited to insomnia/malignant neoplasm of prostate/vascular and dementia/anxiety disorder/mood disorder.Review of R2's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 02/13/25 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 5…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-05-16 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of facility policy, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to report an allegation of abuse, involving Resident (R)1, within 2 hours, for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for abuse. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation dated 10/24/22 indicated, V. (a) An immediate investigation is warranted when suspicion of abuse, neglect or exploitation or reports of abuse, neglect or exploitation occur . VII (a) 1a. Reporting of all alleged violations to the Administrator, state agency, adult protective services and to all other required agencies (e.g.,) law enforcement when applicable within specified timeframes: immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation is made, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury. Review of R1's Face Sheet revealed R1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including but not limited to: major depressive disorder, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-08-15 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to update Resident (R)9's Care Plan for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for care plans. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Comprehensive Care Plans last revised 10/24/22 revealed, It is the policy of this facility to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with resident right, that includes measure objectives and timeframe's to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental/psychosocial needs that are identified in the resident's comprehensive assessment. The comprehensive care plan will include measurable objectives and timeframe's to meet the resident's needs as identified in the resident's comprehensive assessment. The interdisciplinary team will review and revise the comprehensive care plan . Review of R9's Face Sheet revealed R9 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnoses including but not limited to; dementia with behaviors,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-10-07 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolatedKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, record review, and review of facility policies, the facility failed to provide full visual privacy for 1 Resident (R)14 of 3 residents observed for incontinent care. Specifically, the facility failed to provide privacy by closing the privacy curtain or shutting the door while providing care for R14. Findings include: A review of the facility policy and procedure titled, Perineal Care, dated 11/2021, indicated that the steps in providing perineal care included 5. Provide privacy by pulling privacy curtain or closing room door if a private room. A review of the facility policy and procedure titled, Promoting/Maintaining Resident Dignity, dated 10/2022, indicated it was the practice of the facility to protect and promote resident rights and treat each resident with respect and dignity as well as care for each resident in a manner and in an environment, that maintains or enhances resident's quality of life by recognizing each resident's individuality. Compliance Guidelines…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to CARLYLE SENIOR CARE — 7 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 1 of 5 | 2.1 | -1.1 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 1 of 5 | 2.6 | -1.6 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 3.3 | +0.7 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 1 of 5 | 1.6 | -0.6 vs chain |
The other 6 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.1★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NEW DAY HEALTH VENTURES, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 07/01/2016 |
| FOWLER, WANDA M | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 01/31/2022 |
| MOORE, JOHN | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 03/27/2017 |
1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
About 89% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $310K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in SC
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the South Carolina Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 425014. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-09-12, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.