NHC Healthcare - Mauldin
850 E. Butler Rd., Greenville, SC 29607 · For profit - Corporation · 180 certified beds · (864) 675-6421 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- the CMS record shows $7,313 in federal fines (most recent 2025-03-07)
- its payroll- and facility-reported staffing and quality-measure scores sit well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (1/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 1 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing and quality-measure ratings run 3 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself, and staffing on its payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 4 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 3 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 | 13.0% | 11.9% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.5% | 6.3% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.5% | 0.6% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.8% | 1.3% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 4.1% | 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 | 4.1% | 3.2% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 9.3% | 12.7% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 22.5% | 21.0% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 99.3% | 90.6% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.7% | 5.1% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 15.2% | 16.7% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 10.3% | 15.3% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.1% | 1.5% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 93.7% | 78.0% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 23.6% | 24.3% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 12.2% | 13.9% | 12.0% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.65 | 2.04 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.43 | 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.
63.2% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 511 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 56.8% 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 294 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 0.49 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 80% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 3% 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 | 63.2%CMS range 59.4–66.0 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.1%CMS range 8.8–13.7 | 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 | 56.8% | 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 | 58.8% | 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 | 60.5% | 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 | 99.7% | 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 | 99.6% | 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 | 100.0% | 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 | 0.8% | 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 | 0.3% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 7.7%CMS range 5.4–9.9 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.06 | 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 180 beds and averages 167.8 residents a day — about 93% occupied, or roughly 12 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 3.73 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.57 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.26 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 3.15 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.97 on weekdays — 21% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.73 to 0.17 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 43% 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.
9 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · G2026-06-16 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of facility policy, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure Resident (R)78 was free of accidents by an improper transfer for 1 of 9 residents reviewed for accidents. This failure resulted in R78 sustaining a closed fracture of the mid left humeral shaft (a broken upper arm bone where the skin remains intact ). Findings include:Review of the facility policy titled, Consequences for failure to adhere to the Plan of Care, effective 06/01/2010, revealed, All nursing partners are required to follow the individual resident fall prevention care plans located in the Vanderbilt/Falls book on each unit. Adhering to the plan of care involves using all equipment correctly. Mechanical lifts require the presence of two partners at all times, NO EXCEPTIONS. If a resident falls because the plan of care was not followed, the following consequences have been established: 1. Written Counseling: If the POC was not followed regardless of resident activity. 2. 1 day suspension: If the POC was 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 before2025-03-07 · 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
Based on review of facility policy, observation and interview, the facility failed to store, prepare and distribute food under professional standards of food safety. This had the potential to affect 167 of 167 residents who resided at the facility and increased the risk of food-borne illnesses. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Safety & Sanitation Best Practice Guidelines, under the subtitle Sanitation, Manual Warewashing, dated 11/2017 revealed, on item b A chemical sanitizing solution at the proper concentration and at the correct temperature for the sanitizer used. The policy goes onto to state (see chemical sanitizing on page C28-C29). These policy/pages were not available to the surveyor during the survey. Review of the facility's policy titled, Safety & Sanitation Best Practice Guidelines, dated 11/2017, revealed no process for loading and unloading the dishwasher and only referenced to the state food code for further instruction. Observations on 03/06/25 at 8:30 AM with Food Service Director (FSD)1 revealed [NAME] 2 washing dishes in 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 · E2025-03-07 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — patternEnsure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and review of facility menus and meal cards, the facility failed to follow menus for seven of 167 residents (Resident (R) 145, R13, R29, R80, R135, R149, and R67) whose meal service was observed. This failure had the potential to cause increased blood sugar levels and/or affect the residents' cardiac status. Findings include: 1. Review of the facility's menu for the noon meal on 03/06/25, provided by the facility, revealed residents with diet orders of a consistent carbohydrate diet were to receive one half-piece of frosted peanut butter sheet cake for dessert. During an observation on 03/06/25 at 11:52 AM, R145's meal card was noted to read the resident was to receive a consistent carbohydrate diet. R145 was observed to receive one whole piece of frosted peanut butter sheet cake. During an observation on 03/06/25 at 12:25 PM, R13's meal card was noted to read the resident was to receive a consistent carbohydrate diet. R13 was observed to receive one whole piece of frosted peanut butter sheet cake. During an observation on 03/06/25 at 12:45 PM, R29's…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-03-07 · tag F0554 — isolatedAllow residents to self-administer drugs if determined clinically appropriate.
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, and policy review, it was determined the facility failed to conduct medication self-administration assessments and have physician orders for self-administration of medications for one of one resident (Resident (R) 63) reviewed for self-administration of medications out of a total sample of 33. This had the potential to cause harm to R63 through medication administration errors. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Self-Administration of Medications, revised 02/25/25, revealed, . If a resident desires to self-administer medications, a physician's order should be obtained then an assessment is conducted by a member of the interdisciplinary team of the resident's cognitive (including orientation to time), physical and visual ability to carry out the responsibility. For those residents who self-administer, a member of the interdisciplinary team verifies the resident's ability to self-administer medications by means of a skill assessment on a quarterly…
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 · D2025-03-07 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, record review, and review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) manual, the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set (MDS) was coded accurately for three of 33 residents (Residents (R) 95, R74, R42) whose clinical records were reviewed. The facility failed to accurately code a quarterly assessment for hospice services for R95 and for therapy services for R42. In addition, the facility failed to accurately code the use of antipsychotic medication for R74. These failures placed the residents at risk of unmet care needs and a diminished quality of life. Findings included. Review of the October 2024 RAI manual, page 1-5 revealed, . An accurate assessment requires collecting information from multiple sources, some of which are mandated by regulations . It is important to note here that information obtained should cover the same observation period as specified by the MDS (minimum data set) items on the assessment, and should be validated for accuracy (what the resident's actual status…
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 · D2025-03-07 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — isolatedMake sure that the nursing home area is safe, easy to use, clean and comfortable for residents, staff and the public.
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, observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure a specialized wheelchair was clean and sanitary for one of one resident (Resident (R) 131) reviewed for specialized wheelchairs in a total sample of 33. This failure placed the resident at risk for a diminished quality of life and dignity. Findings include: Review of an undated facility policy titled, Noncritical Patient Care Equipment-Cleaning Procedure Summary revealed, . Dedicated equipment-when dedicated to a particular patient during their stay . Frequency . Consistent with cleaning frequency for patient area, and as needed . Person Responsible . Cleaning Partners . Clean and disinfect with a rapid multi surface disinfectant and cleaner or disinfecting wipes . Review of R131's Face Sheet, located in the Face Sheet tab of the electronic medical record (EMR), revealed R131 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including but not limited to: multi-system degeneration of the autonomic nervous system.…
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 · F2024-02-01 · 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 the facility policy, observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the removal of expired supplies from 3 of 6 medications carts, 1 of 1 treatment cart and 1 of 2 storage rooms. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Medication Storage in The Facility revised January 2019, revealed, Outdated, contaminated, or deteriorated medications and those in containers that are cracked, soiled, or without secure closures are immediately removed from stock and returned to pharmacy if appropriate or disposed of on the units. During an observation on 01/31/24 at 11:44 AM of the Medication Cart #3 on Unit 3 revealed: 1 expired BinaxNOW COVID test kit with expiration date of 06/07/23. During an observation on 01/31/24 at 11:50 AM of the Treatment Cart on Unit 3 revealed: 2 boxes of Sureprep Rapid Dry No Sting - Barrier wipes with an expiration date of July 2023, 1 package of Calcium Alginate dressing with an expiration date of 06/28/23, 1 Telfa Non-Adherent dressing with an expiration date of October 2023 and 1 opened package of sterile gauze.…
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 before2024-02-01 · 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
Based on observations, interviews, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure foods that are stored in the freezer and 2 of 3 unit refrigerators were labeled, dated with a use by date and/or discarded after the manufacturer's expiration date. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Safety and Sanitation Best Practices Guidelines-Refrigerator and Freezer storage, dated 11/2017 indicated: 9a. Foods will be stored in their original container, or an NSF approved container or wrapped tightly in moisture-proof film, foil, etc. Clearly labeled with the contents and the use by date. (Food Code 3-501.17). During an observation and interview on 01/29/23 at 12:03 PM, of the kitchen freezer revealed: a 32 ounce (oz) bag of [NAME] Shrimp unlabeled without a use by date and a 7 pound (lbs) bag of Cold-Water Shrimp unlabeled without a use by date. The Dietary Manager (DM) acknowledged the shrimp were not in their original package and did not have a use by date. Further observation of the freezer revealed: a bag of whole cranberries dated 2017. The Dietary…
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 · D2024-02-01 · 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 observations, interviews, record reviews, review of facility policy and review of manufacturer's guidelines, the facility failed to clean and disinfect a blood glucose meter per device and manufacturer's instructions before and after use for 1 of 1 resident, Resident (R)146. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure that its staff demonstrated proper hand hygiene while assisting a resident during meal time. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Blood Glucose Monitoring Technique revised 11/13/18, revealed, 15. Clean glucometer with alcohol wipe and place on barrier to air dry. 18. Place clean meter into storage box and return the storage box to the drawer or closet. Review of the Manufacturer's Guidelines titled, Cleaning and Disinfecting the Assure Prism multi-Blood Glucose Monitoring System (BGMS) revised September 2019, revealed, The meter will be cleaned and disinfected after use on each patient. Review of R146's Medication Administration Record (MAR) dated 01/31/24 revealed…
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
$7,313 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $7,313 — penalty dated 2025-03-07
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to NATIONAL HEALTHCARE CORPORATION — 69 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 1 of 5 | 4.0 | -3.0 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 1 of 5 | 3.5 | -2.5 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 3.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 4.4 | -0.4 vs chain |
The other 68 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.0★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 68; 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
CMS ownership filings flag an owner of this facility as an investment firm. That’s a fact worth knowing about who ultimately profits from the home. Read the inspection and staffing record above on its own merits.
- MORGAN STANLEY — investment firm · 5.40% share · 5% Or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest
- VANGUARD GROUP INC — investment firm · 9.09% share · 5% Or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest
Source: CMS SNF ownership filings (PECOS). These flags are self-reported and undercount — federal auditors (GAO) and researchers find CMS captures only a fraction of true private-equity and REIT ties, so the absence of a flag on other homes is not proof they lack investor owners. How investor ownership affects care →
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| MOORHOUSE, BRADLEY | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 07/01/2018 |
| NHC-OP LP | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2000 |
| DODSON, VICKI | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/01/2019 |
| KIDD, BRIAN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2017 |
| SELLARS, GIDEON | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/14/2025 |
| SHELLY, TIMOTHY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 07/12/2024 |
| SHERMAN, RICHARD | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/17/2020 |
| TURNQUIST, CARRIE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 09/25/2012 |
| USSERY, ROBERT | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/01/2017 |
| BLACKROCK INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/20/2019 |
| DIMENSIONAL FUND ADVISORS LP | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/07/2023 |
| MORGAN STANLEY | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 11/08/2024 |
| NATIONAL HEALTH CORPORATION | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2000 |
| VANGUARD GROUP INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/27/2017 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 21 rows in the source record cover these 14 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.
6 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 $1.8M paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
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 425359. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-03-07, 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.