Heritage Post Acute
515 Warley Street, Florence, SC 29501 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 132 certified beds · (843) 662-4573 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- 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 | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 1 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 | 1 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 1 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 4 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 | 29.3% | 11.9% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 11.3% | 6.3% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.3% | 0.6% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 3.8% | 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 | 1.4% | 3.2% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 25.1% | 12.7% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 13.7% | 21.0% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 88.5% | 90.6% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 13.6% | 5.1% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 26.9% | 16.7% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 20.4% | 15.3% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.4% | 1.5% | 1.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 39.8% | 78.0% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 30.4% | 24.3% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 17.2% | 13.9% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 3.25 | 2.04 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.52 | 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.
33.5% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that worse than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 44 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 41.0% 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 78 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 0.33 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 56% 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 | 33.5%CMS range 22.7–44.2 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | worse than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.2%CMS range 7.3–16.6 | 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 | 41.0% | 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 | 32.0% | 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 | 41.0% | 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 | 95.8% | 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 | 98.3% | 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 | 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 | 5.1% | 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 | 7.3%CMS range 4.2–12.4 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.56 | 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 132 beds and averages 127.4 residents a day — about 97% occupied, or roughly 5 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. 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 3.49 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.56 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.21 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 2.97 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.70 on weekdays — 20% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.68 to 0.28 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 48% 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.
10 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2026-02-07 · tag F0628 — isolatedProvide the required documentation or notification related to the resident's needs, appeal rights, or bed-hold policies.
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 interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide a discharge summary and supplemental oxygen at the time of discharge for 1 (Resident (R)137) of 4 sampled closed records reviewed.Findings include:Review of a facility policy titled Discharge Summary and Plan, revised on 10/2022, revealed, When a resident's discharge is anticipated, a discharge summary and post-discharge plan is developed to assist the resident with discharge. The policy specified, . 12. A copy of the following is provided to the resident and receiving facility and a copy will be filed in the resident's medical records: a. An evaluation of the resident's discharge needs; b. The post-discharge plan; and c. The discharge summary.Review of R137's admission Record revealed the facility admitted R137 on 11/07/2025. According to the admission Record, the resident had a medical history that included but was not limited to a diagnoses of respiratory failure. Per the admission Record, the resident discharged…
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 · D2026-02-07 · 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, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan for the use of enablers for 1 (Resident (R)76) of 24 sampled residents.Findings include:Review of a facility policy titled Care Planning, Comprehensive Person-Centered, revised on 03/2022, revealed A comprehensive, person-centered care plan that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's physical, psychosocial and functional needs is developed and implemented for each resident. The policy specified . 7. The comprehensive, person-entered care plan: a. includes measurable objectives and timeframes; b. describes the services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being.Review of a facility policy titled Enablers, revised on 05/05/2023, revealed Policy: 1. The nursing staff will use enablers whenever possible in lieu of restrains to assist the patient/resident to obtain, maintain and enhance the functional status, an improve his/her…
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 · D2026-02-07 · 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
Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to update the care plan to reflect the resident's use of fall matts for 1 (Resident (R)7) of 24 sampled residents.Findings include:Review of the facility policy titled Care Planning, Comprehensive Person-Centered, revised on 03/2022, revealed, A comprehensive, person-centered care plan that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's physical, psychosocial and functional needs is developed and implemented for each resident. The policy specified, . 11. Assessments of residents are ongoing and care plans are revised as information about the residents and the residents' conditions change.Review of R7's admission Record indicated the facility admitted R7 on 11/15/2024. According to the admission Record, the resident had a medical history that included, but was not limited to diagnoses of muscle weakness and unsteadiness on feet.Review of R7's Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 12/12/2025, revealed R7 had a Brief Interview for Mental…
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 · D2026-02-07 · 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 interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure weekly body audits (skin checks) were conducted and documented for 1 (Resident (R)137) of 3 sampled residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. Findings include:Review of the facility policy titled Pressure Injury/Wound/Skin Management, dated 08/2016, indicated, . 4. A Licensed Nurse performs a weekly body audit, wound measurements, and documents findings in the medical record.Review of R137's admission Record revealed the facility admitted R137 on 11/07/2025. According to the admission Record, the resident had a medical history that included but was not limited to diagnosis of unstageable pressure ulcer of sacral region. Per the admission Record, the resident discharged home with home health services on 11/27/2025.Review of R137's Baseline Care Plan Summary included a problem statement initiated on 11/07/2025, that indicated the resident had impaired skin on the sacrum. Interventions directed staff to perform weekly skin checks.Review of R137's admission 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 · D2026-02-07 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to document the administration of a nutritional supplement ordered for 1 resident (Resident (R)137) of 24 sampled residents.Findings include:Review of R137's admission Record revealed the facility admitted R137 on 11/07/2025. According to the admission Record, the resident had a medical history that included but was not limited to diagnosis of severe protein-calorie malnutrition.Review of R137's admission Minimum Date Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 11/14/2025, revealed R137 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 7 out of 15, which indicated the resident had severe cognitive impairment. The MDS indicated the resident required supervision or touching assistance with eating.Review of R137's Care Plan Report included a focus area initiated on 11/26/2025, that indicated the resident had a nutritional problem or potential for a nutritional problem.Review of R137's Order Summary Report revealed an order dated 11/21/2025 for a nutritional supplement with meals.Review of R137's Medication…
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 before2026-02-07 · 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 observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a catheter drainage bag was not on the floor for 1 (Resident (R)4) of 3 sampled residents reviewed for urinary catheter.Findings include:Review of the facility policy titled Catheter Care, Urinary, revised 08/2022, revealed The purpose of this procedure is to prevent urinary catheter-associated complications, including urinary tract infections. The policy specified, . 2. Be sure the catheter tubing and drainage bag are kept off the floor.Review of R4's admission Record revealed the facility admitted R4 on 01/06/2026. According to the admission Record, the resident had a medical history that included but was not limited to diagnosis of retention of urine.Review of R4's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 01/13/2026, revealed R4 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 5 out of 15, which indicated the resident had severe cognitive impairment. The MDS indicated the resident was dependent on staff for toileting and had 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 · D2024-10-10 · 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 observations, facility policy, and interviews, the facility failed to remove expired medications and biologicals from 1 of 4 medication carts and from 1 of 1 medication storage rooms. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure the medication room was properly secure. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Medication Storage in the Healthcare Centers with revised date 04/09/24 revealed, Policy Statement: .The medication supply is accessible only to licensed nursing personnel and pharmacy personnel .Procedure: 2. Only licensed nurses and the pharmacy personnel are allowed access to medications Medication rooms, carts, and medication supplies are locked or attended by persons with authorized access. 3. Nurses are required to check all medications for deterioration and expiration before administration. Nurses are also required to inspect medication storage facilities, including medication carts, routinely .12. Outdated, contaminated, or deteriorated medications and those in containers that…
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 · D2024-10-10 · tag F0800 — isolatedProvide each resident with a nourishing, palatable, well-balanced diet that meets his or her daily nutritional and special dietary needs.
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 facility policy, record review, observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure ordered supplements were provided for 1 of 2 residents, (R)50 reviewed for nutritional supplements. Findings include: Record review of the facility policy dated 07/03/2019 titled, Telephone/Verbal Orders From Physician revealed under the policy, Llicensed staff may obtain orders from their extenders via verbal order or telephone orders. The nursing staff may repeat the order back to the physician or extender for verification if necessary. The physician signs the order on his/her next visit. Record review of R50's medical record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis that include but are not limited to anemia, hyperlipidemia, cerebral infarction, anxiety, gastroesophogeal reflux and osteoporosis. Record review of R50's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13, indicating she is cognitively intact. Record review…
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 before2024-10-10 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of the facility policy, record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure hand hygeine was followed for 1 of 4 residents, (R)58, reviewed for pressure ulcers. Findings include: Review of the facility policy, date unspecified, titled, Wound Care/Dressing Change Procedure states under the policy, Clean the wound according to the order. Remove gloves and place in the trash. Hand hygeine. Put on clean gloves. Apply clean dressing as ordered. Remove gloves and place in the trash can. Make resident comfortable. Hand hygiene. Record review revealed R58 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included but not limited to dementia, depression, Alzheimers' Disease, dysphagia, and hypertension. Review of R58's treatment orders revealed a treatment order dated 09/03/24 to cleanse sacral wound with normal saline, apply medihoney and calcium alginate to wound bed, and cover with a dry dressing until healed. Apply house barrier cream and antifungal powder to skin surrounding wound to…
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 · D2023-01-06 · tag F0806 — failed to honor food preferences — isolatedEnsure each resident receives and the facility provides food that accommodates resident allergies, intolerances, and preferences, as well as appealing options.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of the facility policy, record review, interviews, and observation, the facility failed to ensure Resident (R)60, 1 of 1 reviewed with food allergies, did not receive food items to which s/he was allergic. Findings include: Review of the facility's undated policy and procedure titled, ALLERGIES states: Policy- To avoid administration of medications and foods that cause residents to experience adverse reactions. The facility admitted R60 with diagnoses including but not limited to type 2 diabetes, anemia, osteoarthritis, and hyperlipidemia. Review of the Minimum Data Set with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 11/28/22 revealed R60 has a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15, indicating he is cognitively intact. Record review on 01/05/23 at approximately 09:05 AM revealed a dietary order dated 11/22/22 stating CCHO REGULAR CONSISTENCY DIET *NO FISH, NO PORK, NO SEAFOOD, AND NO IODINE CONTAINING COMPOUNDS*. Record review on 01/05/23 revealed a progress note dated 01/04/23 at 02:22 PM stating Resident ate a piece of shrimp gumbo during…
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.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| ANDRADE, ROCIO | Individual | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/01/2024 |
| DYSON, JOEL | Individual | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/01/2024 |
| KOLODNY, AVROHOM | Individual | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/01/2024 |
| ELDER, ROBERT | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/23/2025 |
| PRUITT, KELLY | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/23/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 11 rows in the source record cover these 5 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.
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.
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 425154. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-02-07, 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.