PruittHealth- Conway At Conway Medical Center
2379 Cypress Circle, Conway, SC 29526 · For profit - Corporation · 88 certified beds · (843) 347-8179 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- a high number of inspection citations overall (21) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- nursing-staff turnover (62%) runs well above the national median (45%)
- about 18% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
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 | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
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 | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 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 improved from 1 to 2 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 | 14.9% | 11.9% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 8.4% | 6.3% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.7% | 0.6% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.2% | 1.3% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 3.9% | 3.1% | 6.5% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger 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 | 2.3% | 3.2% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 22.0% | 12.7% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 22.8% | 21.0% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 92.5% | 90.6% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.9% | 5.1% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 11.1% | 16.7% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 7.9% | 15.3% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.3% | 1.5% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.0% | 78.0% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 29.4% | 24.3% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 14.1% | 13.9% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.78 | 2.04 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.12 | 1.84 | 1.80 | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ 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.
58.4% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 103 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 56.1% 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 66 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 0.29 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 45% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 16% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. 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 | 58.4%CMS range 48.9–67.6 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 12.6%CMS range 8.5–16.5 | 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 | 56.1% | 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 | 60.6% | 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 | 57.6% | 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 | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this 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 | 96.2% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 1.9% | 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 | 2.8% | 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 | 7.1%CMS range 4.2–11.1 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.94 | 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 88 beds and averages 80.7 residents a day — about 92% occupied, or roughly 7 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. 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 3.30 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.78 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.74 is below 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 2.80 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.50 on weekdays — 20% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.89 to 0.51 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 62% is well above 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 fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. 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.
21 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 11 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-05-08 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
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, record review and interview, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan for Resident (R)25, for 1 of 37 sampled residents.Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Care Plans revealed, Policy Statement: It is the policy of the health care center for each patient/resident to have a person-centered baseline care plan followed by a comprehensive care plan developed following completion of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) and Care Area Assessment (CAA) portions of the comprehensive assessment according to the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual and patient/resident choice.admission Comprehensive Plan of Care:.3. The comprehensive person-centered care plan is developed to include measurable goals and timeframes to meet a patient/resident's medical, nursing and psychosocial needs, the services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, an psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive…
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 · D2026-05-08 · 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 review of facility policy, record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure respiratory equipment was maintained in a sanitary manner and in accordance with facility policy, and failed to ensure physician orders were in place for oxygen equipment maintenance for 1 of 12 residents reviewed who receive oxygen, Resident (R)25. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Oxygen Administration indicated, Policy Statement: It is the policy of [NAME] Health Hospice and Healthcare Centers/Veterans Homes to provide oxygen safely and accurately to appropriate patients/residents. Infection Control Policy of O2 (oxygen) Humidifier Bottles.4. Change all oxygen tubing when there is visible soiling with respiratory secretions and mucous and weekly.10. Clean exterior of concentrators weekly and between each patient/resident use with bactericidal surface cleaner. Review of R25's clinical record indicated R25 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including but not…
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 · Fcited before2025-05-13 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
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, facility policy review, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for five (5) out of five (5) sampled residents (Resident (R)33, R37, R73, R75 and R188). Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Infection Prevention and Control Program Surveillance Reporting dated 11/30/23, revealed, It is the policy of this facility to establish and maintain an Infection Control Program than includes detection, prevention and control of the transmission of disease and infection among patients/residents and partners . Review of the facility policy titled, Enhanced Barrier Precaution (EBP) dated 04/30/24, stated, It is the policy of this facility to implement EBP for the prevention of transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms . 2. Initiation of EBP i.indwelling medical…
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 · Dcited before2025-05-13 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, policy review, and record review, the facility failed to provide reasonable accommodation of resident needs and preferences for one (1) of 39 sampled residents, (Resident (R)39). The resident could not access his/her call light during three (3) different observations. Findings include: Review of facility policy titled, Nursing: Patient/Rights, Accommodation of Needs, dated 12/01/23, stated, It is the policy of this healthcare center to promote and protect the rights of the patients/residents residing in the center . Essential Points - Unless indicated in the care plan, each patient/resident, when in their room or in bed, must have the call light placed within reach at all times, regardless of staff assessment of patient/residents ability to use it. When the patient/resident is in bed, the call light should be fastened to the side rail he/she is facing. When out of the bed, the call bell is to be draped across the bed, so it is accessible from wheelchair, or bedside chair. Review of R39's Resident Face Sheet revealed the facility admitted the resident…
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 · D2025-05-13 · 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
Based on observation, interview, facility policy review, and record review, the facility failed to protect the personal privacy and confidentiality of personal and medical records for two (2) of five (5) sampled residents, (Resident (R)37 and R73). Specifically, the Electronic Medication Administration Records (EMR) were not minimized and/or concealed while the medication cart was left unattended by a Registered Nurse (RN). Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Privacy Practices: Use of Notice of Privacy Practices for Protected Health Information (PHI), dated 05/16/23, stated, Protected Health Information (or PHI) is individually identifiable health information. Health information means any information, whether oral or recorded in any medium, that: Is created or received by (facility) or an affiliated entity or business associate, and Relates to the past, present or future physical or mental health or condition of an individual: the provision of health care to an individual . Review of the facility's policy and procedure, titled, Medication Administration: General…
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 · D2025-05-13 · 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
Based on review of facility policy, record review and interview, the facility failed to electronically transmit encoded, accurate, and complete Minimum Data Set (MDS) data to the CMS System for seven (7) out of 74 resident reviewed. Findings include: The facility's MDS Assessment policy dated 12/06/22 stated, It is the policy of this healthcare center that each Minimum Data Set (MDS) reflect the acuity and the medical status of each patient/resident in accordance with acceptable professional standards and practices. The assessment will be scheduled to accurately account for the acuity and complexity of the patient/resident. Each Assessment Reference Date (ARD) will be chosen to capture services rendered and reflect an accurate clinical profile of each patient/resident. The Interdisciplinary Team will be assessing based on a set ARD to maintain accuracy, timeliness, and consistency, and generate the most effective Plan of Care for each patient/resident. Review of resident records revealed Resident (R)32's MDS was assigned 03/04/25, due 03/05/25, and sent to the facility's corporate…
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 · D2025-05-13 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, facility policy review, and record review, the facility failed to accurately reflect the resident's status for one (1) of five (5) sampled residents. Specifically, the Registered Nurse (RN) failed to accurately document an Accu-check (a device used to check blood sugars) result for Resident (R)73. Findings include: The facility did not provide a copy of the policy and procedure related to accuracy and documentation of resident assessment; however, review of the Evencare G3 Blood Glucose Monitoring System: Certified Instructor Record Competency Checklist revealed that staff should record the patient result accurately. Review of R73's Progress Note dated 04/10/25, revealed the facility admitted the resident on 03/11/25, status post hospitalization from a fall at home, which resulted in a Right Open Reduction Internal Fixation (ORIF). Continued review of the Progress Note, revealed diagnoses including but not limited to: Pancreatic Cancer, Generalized Weakness, and Seasonal Allergies. Review of R73's Comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an…
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 · Dcited before2025-05-13 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, facility policy review and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, that included measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that were identified in the comprehensive assessment. Specifically, Resident (R)39 did not have his/her call light within reach as outlined in the care plan. Additionally, R37 was not care planned for Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP). This affected two (2) of seven (7) sampled residents. Findings include: 1. Review of R39's Resident Face Sheet, revealed the facility admitted the resident on 12/07/20. Review of R39's Progress Note Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) (Amended), dated 12/20/25, revealed the resident had diagnoses including but not limited to: Anxiety, Vascular Dementia, Unspecified Severity, with Anxiety, Type II Diabetes Mellitus, Hypertensive Heart Disease with Heart Failure, Atrial Fibrillation, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), Chronic Respiratory…
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 · D2025-05-13 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
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 facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a Physician's Order was followed for the administration of a medication patch, Lidocaine (used for the treatment of pain). This affected one (1) of six (6) residents (Resident (R)75) observed during medication administration. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Medication Administration: General Guidelines with a revised date of 04/20/19, revealed: Medications are administered as prescribed, in accordance with good practices and only by persons legally authorized to do so . Procedure: 1. Medications are prepared, administered, and recorded only by licensed nursing, medical, or pharmacy personnel. 2. Medications are administered in accordance with written orders of the attending physician . 10. Medications are administered within 60 minutes before or after scheduled time, . Unless otherwise specified by the physician, routine medications are administered according to the established…
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 · Dcited before2025-05-13 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
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 facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure that medications were properly stored for one (1) of six (6) residents (Resident (R)33) when staff left medications on top of a medication cart unattended and out of view. Findings include: A review of the facility's policy titled Medication Storage in the Healthcare Centers with a revised date of 11/01/24, revealed, . Policy Statement: Medications and biologicals are stored safely, securely, and properly following manufacturing recommendations or those of the supplier .16. During routine administration of medications, the medication cart is kept in the doorway of the patient/resident's room, with open drawers facing inward and all other sides closed and locked. No medications are kept on top of the cart, and all outward sides must be inaccessible to patients/residents or others passing by . A record review of R33's Resident Face Sheet revealed the resident was admitted on [DATE], with diagnoses including…
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.
Show the remaining 11 citations
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2023-07-27 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — widespreadEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of facility policy, observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that medications were secured, that outdated medications were removed from active storage and that medications were labeled as to opened and/or expiration date for 6 of 8 medication storage areas with expired medications and/or unlocked medication carts. Finding include: Review of a facility policy titled, Medication Storage in the Healthcare Centers, with a reviewed date of 07/11/22, states, Medications and biologicals are stored safely, securely, and properly following manufacturer's recommendation or those of the supplier. Medication rooms, carts, and medication supplies are locked or attended by persons with authorized access . Multi-dose containers of injectables . and inhalers are to be dated (when opened) and Outdated . medications . are immediately removed from stock . During an observation on 07/24/23 at approximately 10:37 AM, of the crash cart revealed it was unlocked and contained two 10 ml (milliliter) syringes of Sterile NaCl (Sodium Chloride) 0.9% (percent), USP (United…
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 · F2023-07-27 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
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, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure foods that are stored in the freezer, dry storage, emergency storage and resident dietary rooms were labeled with contents and open date and discarded after the manufacturer's expiration date. Findings Include: Review of the facility ' s policy titled, Food Ordering, Receiving, and Storage, with an effective date of 09/01/2001, reveals It is the policy of PruittHealth that food will be routinely ordered and received from approved corporate vendors who obtain food from regulated and reputable sources to ensure safety. Storage and Rotation Guidelines: FIFO: first in, first out. Stock should be rotated utilizing this principle. Old products should be moved to the front of the shelf, new products behind the old. Date all stock items with delivery date. An observation on 07/24/23 at approximately 10:55AM, revealed a half head of lettuce, a plastic square container with a green lid with chicken salad, a silver pan of…
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 · F2023-07-27 · tag F0908 — failed to keep essential equipment working — widespreadKeep all essential equipment working safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of facility policy, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure an excessive build-up of lint was removed from 2 of 2 clothes dryers. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Dryer Vent: Complete In-House System Cleaning, states, Confirm that the lint is removed from the stack and inside the dryer. It is a fire hazard and a code violation if this is not maintained. Inside and Behind Dryer and Drum: Pull the front covers off the dryers and clean the entire area. A shop vac or air compressor works best for this task. Lint Catch/Screens Lint Catchers should be cleaned after each load. Every few months, remove the lint catch and with a bristle brush, wash the screen clean. A fine layer of lint can form across the screen and stop the flow of clean air out of the dryer, hampering the speed of drying the items. During an observation of the laundry room on 07/26/23 at 8:45 AM, revealed 2 of 2 clothes dryers with excessive lint under the lint basket, on the sides and inside the lint compartment which hold the lint basket. During an interview on…
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 · E2023-07-27 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — patternProvide enough nursing staff every day to meet the needs of every resident; and have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of facility policy, interviews, record review, and observation, the facility failed to ensure sufficient nursing staff for 19 of 30 days reviewed for sufficient staff needed to maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial health and safety of each resident. Findings include: Review of a facility policy titled, State Minimum Staffing for Healthcare Centers with a revision date of 07/15/16 documented, The facility will maintain the minimum staffing hours in accordance with federal law . Staffing shall be sufficient to meet the healthcare needs of each patient/resident as identified in the patient/resident's plan of care. Daily nursing hours will be posted at each facility accordance with federal regulations. Review of a document tilted, Daily Nursing Hours for Healthcare Centers Form from 06/26/23 - 07/25/23, revealed the following days the facility was short nursing staff: 06/26/23 06/30/23 07/01/23 - 07/02/23 07/04/23 - 07/09/23 07/12/23 07/14/23 - 07/17/23 07/20/23 - 07/22/23 07/25/23 During an interview on 07/27/23 at 8:57 AM, 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 · E2023-07-27 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — patternDevelop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
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, record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents were offered the Pneumococcal Vaccinations, and to ensure residents had received the vaccination while a resident of the facility, if they chose to do so for 5 of 5 residents reviewed for immunizations. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Pneumococcal Vaccinations, states under policy statement, All patients/residents who reside in this healthcare center are to receive the pneumoccal vaccine(s) within the current CDC guidelines unless contraindicated by their physician or refused by the patient/resident or the patient/resident's family. If the patient/resident is cognitively impaired as evidenced by scoring on the MDS, the responsible party will be contacted and their wishes will be followed in this matter. The Procedure states: 1. The admission process will include determining whether the patient/resident has received the pneumococcal vaccine in the past. This will be the responsibility…
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 · Dcited before2023-07-27 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of the facility policy, observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure that Resident (R)18 was provided a comfortable fitting bed for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for accommodation of needs. Findings include: A review of a facility policy titled, Procedure: Positioning Resident: Basic Body Positions Used in Bed, dated 2019, documented, Procedure: The basic body positions used for residents in bed are supine, semi supine, prone, semi prone, lateral, and several variations of the Fowler's position. 7. Sitting positions: b. Semi Fowler's-positioned with the head elevated 30 degrees and knees raised slightly. c. Fowler's-positioned with the head elevated 45 degrees and knees raised slightly. d. High Fowler's-positioned with the head elevated 60 degrees and knees raised slightly. Considerations: Be sure the body is well supported, and the resident is repositioned frequently to relieve pressure. Review of R18's Face sheet indicated the facility admitted R18 with diagnoses that included but no limited to; encounter for other orthopedic aftercare,…
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 · D2023-07-27 · tag F0645 — isolatedPASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure that Resident (R)54 had an accurate Level 1 Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR), for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for PASARR. Findings include: Review of R54's Face Sheet indicated the facility admitted R54 with diagnoses that included, but was not limited to, schizoaffective disorder, and unspecified dementia with psychotic disturbance. Review of R54's Discharge-Return Anticipated Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD)of 07/06/23, revealed R54's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) interview was not performed. The Staff Assessment for Mental Status (SAMS) score was two, indicating R54 was moderately impaired in cognitive skills for daily decision making. Further review of the MDS revealed R54 required extensive assistance with bed mobility and eating and was totally dependent on staff for toileting. Review of R54's Physician Orders, for the month of 07/23, revealed an order, dated 07/19/23, for quetiapine (an antimanic agent) 50 milligrams (mg), one tablet twice daily for…
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 · D2023-07-27 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of facility policy, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to follow procedure during wound care for Resident (R)12 to promote healing and to prevent or decrease the likelihood of infection for 1 of 2 residents reviewed with pressure ulcers. Findings include: Review of the undated facility policy tiled, Guidelines for Cleansing and Observing a Wound, under Procedure states: 4. Perform hand hygiene according to facility policy/protocol. 5. [NAME] personal protective equipment as appropriate for procedure. 7. Gently clean the wound with the ordered cleanser or normal saline. 8. Work from clean areas to less clean areas. 9. To cleanse any injury or pressure ulcer, work in half circles or full circles, beginning in the center of the wound and working outward. Cleanse the skin at least on inch beyond the edge of the dressing. Use a new sponge for each circle. 10. Avoid rubbing back forth. Rinse using the same technique. 11. Use each gauze sponge once, then discard it. 14. As soon as you have finished removing the soiled dressing and cleaning the wound, remove…
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 · D2023-07-27 · 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
Based on review of facility policy, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to follow procedure during suprapubic catheter care for Resident (R)12, to reduce the risk of infection for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for catheter care. Findings include: Review of the undated facility policy titled, Catheter Care, states under Procedure: 1. Identify resident. 3. Explain procedure to resident. 4. Perform hand hygiene according to facility policy/protocol. 5. [NAME] personal protective equipment as appropriate for procedure. 6. Explain the reason for the procedure to the resident. 7. Wash your hands and pull the curtain. 8. Position the bed protector. 9. Drape the resident for modesty. Review of an undated facility document titled, Competency: Suprapubic Catheter Care, revealed the following: Greet patient and explain procedure, pull privacy curtains, close door and blinds. Gather supplies (disposable wipes, gloves and plastic bag), wash hands, drape resident, place clean trash bag at the foot of the bed. Use disposable cloth-with one stroke, wash the side away from you, cleansing…
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 · D2023-07-27 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
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 reviews, interviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure Resident (R)24 received all doses of a drug prescribed for atrial fibrillation for 1 of 6 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. Findings include: Review of a facility policy titled. Ordering Medications from the Pharmacy, with a reviewed date of 7/19/23, documented, The healthcare center will transmit physician orders to the pharmacy using facsimile or other technology in order to receive medication on a timely basis. and Medication orders requiring refill are recorded on Medication Reorder sheet . Medication should be reordered four (4) days in advance of need in order to maintain an adequate supply on hand. Review of a facility policy titled, Medication Administration: General Guideline with a reviewed date of 5/31/23, documented, Medications are administered as prescribed . Review of R24's Face Sheet revealed R24 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including, but not limited to, atrial…
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 · Dcited before2023-07-27 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of facility, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure proper hand washing during suprapubic catheter care and wound care for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for catheter care and wound care. Findings include: Review of the undated facility policy titled, Infection Prevention - Hand Hygiene, states, This facility will improve hand hygiene practices and reduce Healthcare Associated Infections. Under Procedures section D states, Indications Requiring Hand Wash or Hand Rub. 1. Before and after contact with the resident. 2. Before donning gloves, including sterile gloves. 3. Before inserting indwelling urinary catheters, peripheral vascular catheters. IV or other invasive devices that do not require a surgical procedure. 4. After contact with a resident's intact skin. 5. After contact with blood, body fluids or excretions, mucous membranes, non-intact skin, and wound dressings. 6. When hands move from a contaminated-body site to a clean-body site during resident care. 7. Immediately after removal pf personal protective equipment, (gloves, gown, facemask's) 8.…
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.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- 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 PRUITTHEALTH — 95 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 | 4 of 5 | 2.9 | +1.1 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 2.8 | +1.2 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 2.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 3.6 | -0.6 vs chain |
The other 94 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.9★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 94; lowest-rated first.
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 | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| UNITED HEALTH SERVICES OF SOUTH CAROLINA INC | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 09/04/2018 |
| PRUITT, NEIL | Individual | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 11/27/2013 |
| J PAIGE PRUITT TRUST | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/22/2021 |
| LISA P HAMBY TRUST | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/22/2021 |
| NEIL L PRUITT JR TRUST | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/22/2021 |
| NWP 2020 CHILD TR FBO NEIL L PRUITT JR | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 08/12/2020 |
| UHS- PRUITT HOLDINGS INC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 09/04/2019 |
| UNITED HEALTH SERVICES INC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 09/04/2018 |
| SMALL, PHILIP | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 11/27/2013 |
| PRUITT, NANCY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 11/27/2013 |
| ROBBINS, CINDY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/28/2025 |
| PRUITTHEALTH CONSULTING SERVICES INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 11/26/2013 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 17 rows in the source record cover these 12 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
8 organizational owners 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.
This home reported $1.5M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 18% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. 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, FY2024). 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 425173. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-05-08, 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.