No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Golden Age Operations

82 N Main Street, Inman, SC 29349 · For profit - Individual · 44 certified beds · (864) 472-6636 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (864) 472-6636 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Abuse/neglect citation on record (F0600) — cited Jun 20252 immediate-jeopardy citations CMS recorded as corrected before the inspection ended (past non-compliance)$10,364 in federal fines
Insights

This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.

In its favor
  • a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
  • fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
Worth asking about
  • it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Jun 2025
  • inspectors recorded 2 serious findings as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
  • the CMS record shows $10,364 in federal fines (most recent 2025-06-25)
  • nursing-staff turnover (60%) runs well above the national median (45%)

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.

4/5
CMS overall
4 of 5
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

Hospital
★★ 2/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
12230 Asheville Hwy · (864) 472-2144 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
27 N Main St · (864) 472-2136 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
10 N Howard St · (864) 978-7671 · Call to confirm hours
Park
50 Bishop St · (864) 804-5814 · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship

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 3 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 2 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 held steady at 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.

Overall rating2★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased17.0%11.9%15.4%worse
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight5.2%6.3%5.4%typical
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.0%0.6%0.9%better
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection2.4%1.3%2.0%worse
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms6.9%3.1%6.5%typical
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.1%0.1%better
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury4.0%3.2%3.3%worse
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened25.6%12.7%16.1%worse
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication12.1%21.0%18.9%better
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine71.4%90.6%95.3%worse
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers1.8%5.1%4.7%better
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control21.5%16.7%21.2%typical
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table10.1%15.3%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication0.0%1.5%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine35.1%78.0%79.4%worse
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission25.6%24.3%22.6%worse
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit15.4%13.9%12.0%worse

§ 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.

10.8%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
68.2%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.30U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.14hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.12hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.05hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 68.2% 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 22 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 0.30 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 49% 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
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNFnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF10.8%CMS range 6.8–15.310.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no 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 discharge68.2%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 discharge45.5%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge59.1%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 identified96.5%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 settingnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final dischargenot 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 stay0.0%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened6.9%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization7.1%CMS range 3.5–13.47.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs1.071.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS 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

0.72
RN hours/ resident / day
0.83
LPN hours/ resident / day
1.87
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.43
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.52
RN hoursweekends
60.5%
Total nursing turnover
75.0%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 44 beds and averages 39.2 residents a day — about 89% occupied, or roughly 5 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 3.43 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.72 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.87 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 3.11 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.56 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.81 to 0.52 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 60% 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

0
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2026-02-27)
4
at the previous standard inspection (2025-03-19)

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.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

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.

12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.

  • Immediate jeopardy · J2025-06-25 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolated
    Protect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of the facility's policy, record review, and interviews, the facility neglected to provide care and services for Resident (R)1, resulting in R1 successfully eloping from the facility, for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for neglect. On 06/06/25 at 12:30 PM the Administrator was notified that the failure to prevent a successful elopement from the facility constituted Immediate Jeopardy at F600. On 06/06/25 at 12:30 PM, the survey team provided the Administrator with a copy of the CMS Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) Template and informed the facility IJ existed as of 05/12/25. The IJ was related to 42 CFR 483.12 - Freedom from Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation. On 06/06/25 at 3:42 PM, the facility provided an acceptable IJ Removal Plan. On 06/06/25, the survey team, validated the facility's corrective actions and determined that the facility put forth due diligence in addressing the noncompliance. This IJ is considered at Past Non-Compliance as of 05/13/25. An extended survey was conducted in conjunction with 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.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
  • Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2025-06-25 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure 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 the facility's policy, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision for 1 out of 3 residents reviewed for accidents. On 06/06/25 at 12:30 PM, the Administrator was notified that the failure to prevent a successful elopement from the facility constituted Immediate Jeopardy at F689. On 06/06/25 at 12:30 PM, the survey team provided the Administrator with a copy of the CMS Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) Template and informed the facility IJ existed as of 05/12/25. The IJ was related to 42 CFR 483.25 - Quality of Care. On 06/25/25, the facility provided an acceptable IJ Removal Plan. On 06/25/25, the survey team, validated the facility's corrective actions and and determined that the facility put forth due diligence in addressing the noncompliance. This IJ is considered at Past Non-Compliance as of 05/13/25. An extended survey was conducted in conjunction with the Complaint Survey for non-compliance at F689, constituting substandard quality of care. Findings include:…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
  • Potential for harm · D2025-03-19 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
    Develop 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 facility policy, observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan for of 2 of 3 residents. (Resident (R)22 and R24). Findings include; Record review of the facility policy dated 2025, titled Comprehensive Care Plan revealed It is the policy of this facility to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with resident rights, that includes measurable objectives and timeframe's to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs . The comprehensive care plan will describe, at a minimum the following: the services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the residents highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. Review of R22's Face Sheet revealed R22 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including but not limited to acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, hydrocephalus, and mild cognitive impairment. Review of R22's Minimum Data Set (MDS)…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-03-19 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolated
    Provide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
    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, observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to complete a dressing change using standards of practice to prevent cross contamination of a pressure ulcer, for 1 of 1 resident, (Resident (R)22), reviewed for pressure ulcers. Findings include: Review of the facility policy dated 2024, titled, Clean Dressing Change stated, It is the policy of this facility to provide wound care in a manner to decrease potential for infection and or cross/contamination. Setup clean field on the overbed table with needed supplies .Place a disposable cloth or linen saver on the overbed table. Place only the supplies to be used per wound on the clean field . Use no touch techniques to remove ointments and creams from their containers (i.e. use of tongue blade or applicator). Review of R22's Face Sheet revealed R22 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including but not limited to: acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, hydrocephalus, and mild cognitive impairment.…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-03-19 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolated
    Provide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide respiratory care in accordance with professional standards. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure 2 of 2 sampled residents (Resident (R)12 and (R)22), received the correct oxygen flow rate per physician's orders. Findings include: Review of the undated facility policy titled, Oxygen Administration revealed, Policy: Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: 1. Oxygen is administered under orders of a physician, except in cases of emergency. In such case, oxygen is administered and orders for oxygen are obtained as soon as practicable when the situation is under control. Review of R12's Face Sheet revealed R12 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including but not limited to: paroximal atrial fibrillation, heart failure, long term (current) use of anticoagulants, acute ischemic heart disease, asthma, bipolar disorder, current episode mixed, mild, presence of automatic (implantable)…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-03-19 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide 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 policy, observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure proper handwashing and proper precautions utilizing gloves while removing and reapplying a transdermal patch for Resident (R)5, for 1 of 1 residents observed. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Medication Administration, states, Policy: Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: . 4. Wash hands prior to administering medication per facility protocol and product. 14. Remove medication from source, taking care not to touch medication with bare hand. 19. Wash hands using facility protocol and product. During an observation on 03/18/25 at 8:40 AM, during medication administration revealed, R5 was ordered Rivastigmine 4.6mg/24. Apply transdermal patch everyday. Registered Nurse (RN)1 prepared the medications for R5. RN1 signed the Medication Administration Record (MAR) to indicate the medications had been given. RN1 sanitized her hands, collected the medications and knocked on the door of the resident's room. RN1 placed the medications on the resident'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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-06-11 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolated
    Ensure 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

    Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure medications were timely administered for 1 (Resident (R)6) of 3 sampled residents observed for medication administration. Findings included: An undated facility policy titled, Medication Administration, revealed Medications are administered by licensed nurses, or other staff who are legally authorized to do so in this state, as ordered by the physician and in accordance with professional standards of practice, in a manner to prevent contamination or infection. The policy Administer within 60 minutes prior to or after scheduled time unless otherwise ordered by physician. On 06/10/2024 at 10:15 AM, the surveyor observed Registered Nurse (RN)1 administer R6 their 8:00 AM dose of oxybutynin chloride and sennosides-docusate sodium. R6's Order Summary Report, with active orders as of 06/10/2024, revealed an order dated 04/11/2024 for oxybutynin chloride oral tablet, give 5 milligrams (mg) by mouth four times a day for overactive bladder and sennosides-docusate sodium oral tablet…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-06-11 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure 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 observation, interview, record review, document review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure two staff assisted with a mechanical lift transfer for 1 (Resident (R)4) of 3 sampled residents reviewed for accidents. The failure resulted in R4 sustaining a laceration to the back of their head. Findings included: An undated facility policy titled, Safe Resident Handling/Transfers, with a copyright date of 2023 revealed It is the policy of this facility to ensure that residents are handled and transferred safely to prevent or minimize risks for injury and provide and promote a safe, secure and comfortable experience for the resident while keeping the employees safe in accordance with current standards and guidelines. The policy specified, 10. Two staff members must be utilized when transferring residents with a mechanical lift. An admission Record revealed the facility admitted R4 on 11/13/2023. According to the admission Record, the resident had a medical history that included diagnoses…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-04-20 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolated
    Develop 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 record review, facility policy review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the comprehensive care plan was developed with the participation of the resident and the resident representative for two (Resident (R) 2 and R6) of 33 residents sampled. Findings include: Review of the facility's undated policy titled, Care Planning-Resident Participation revealed, Policy: This facility supports the resident's right to be informed of and participate in his or her care planning and treatment (implementation of care). Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: 1. The facility will inform the resident, in a language he or she can understand, of his or her rights regarding planning and implementing care, including the right to be informed of his or her total health status. 2. The facility will notify the resident and/resident representative, in advance, of the care to be furnished and the type of caregiver or professional that will furnish care, as well as changes to the plan of care. 3. The facility will encourage and assist the resident and or assist 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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-04-20 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolated
    Ensure 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

    Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure services provided met professional standard of quality for one (Resident (R) 14) of three residents observed during observations of medication administration. Observations revealed R14's blood sugar was not checked as ordered. Findings include: On 04/18/23 at 8:00 AM, during a medication administration observation in R14's room, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)1 did not obtain the resident's fingerstick blood sugar (FSBS) level. A review of R14's care plan indicated the resident was at risk for unstable blood glucose related to stress, sedentary activity level, and lack of adherence to diabetes management due to the resident having diabetes and being insulin dependent. R14's goals indicated the resident would not have any complications related to diabetes through the review date. Interventions included for staff to administer the resident's diabetes medication as ordered by the doctor and to monitor/document for side effects and effectiveness. On 04/20/23 at 9:04 AM, a review of the electronic health…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-04-20 · tag F0865 — failed to run a quality-improvement (QAPI) program — isolated
    Have a plan that describes the process for conducting QAPI and QAA activities.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to make good faith attempts to improve performance through its Quality Assurance Committee. The facility failed to provide consistent care plan meetings for its residents and resident representatives dating back to November of 2022. Findings include: Review of an undated facility policy titled, Quality Assurance Performance Improvement, revealed its purpose is to enable the facility to take a proactive approach to continually improve the way care is provided to residents. QAPI is integrated into all care and services with a focus on clinical care, quality of life, resident choice, balance between safety and choice, and evidence based best practices. In an interview with the Minimum Data Set (MDS) consultant on 04/18/2023 at approximately 12:27 PM revealed the facility has been without a full-time MDS coordinator since October of 2022. There is a list of residents that have missed their care plan meetings, and the facility is actively trying to hire a full-time MDS coordinator. The consultant stated a performance improvement…

    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.

    Administration Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-04-20 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide 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, facility policy review, and interview, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program to help prevent the transmission of communicable disease for two (Resident (R) 14 and R6) of three residents observed during medication administration. Observations during medication administration revealed the nurse did not perform hand hygiene between residents after contact with the residents during medication administration. Findings include: Review of the facility's undated policy titled, Medication Administration, revealed, 16. Wash hands using facility protocol and product. Review of the facility's undated policy titled, Hand Hygiene, revealed, Policy: All staff will perform proper hand hygiene procedures to prevent the spread of infection to other personnel, residents, and visitors. Policy Explanations and Compliance Guidelines: 2. Hand Hygiene is indicated and will be performed under the conditions listed in, but not limited to, the attached hand hygiene table. Review of the undated Hand Hygiene Table revealed, Use either soap and water or…

    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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“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.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • 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.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

$10,364 in federal fines across 2 penalties.

  • $5,182 — penalty dated 2025-06-25
  • $5,182 — penalty dated 2025-06-25

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.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleShareSince
YAKAR HOLDINGS, LLCOrganizationDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTsince 03/01/2019
GREENWALD, MICHAELIndividual5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNFNO PERCENTAGE PROVIDEDsince 03/01/2019
MDB HOLDINGS 1 LLCOrganizationINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTsince 07/01/2020
YAKAR OPERATING LLCOrganizationINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTsince 03/01/2019
BOKOR, MICHAELIndividualINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 07/01/2020
HAUBNER, BRANDONIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 03/08/2022
JOHNSON, DENAIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 05/03/2023

CMS files one row per role, so the 14 rows in the source record cover these 7 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

3 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.

$3.5M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-13.5%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$428K
Related-party expense11% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 77%Medicare 10%Other / private 13%

About 77% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $428K paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 11% 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. 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

$304per resident / day
operating cost
$9,251per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$268per day
avg. revenue, all payers

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

Paying with Medicaid

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.

Typical monthly cost in South Carolina
$9,034/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$9,612/mo
Nursing home (private)
$5,350/mo
Assisted living

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 425316. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-02-27, 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.

What to do next