Senior Care of Marion
2770 S Highway 501, Marion, SC 29571 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 90 certified beds · (855) 573-8466 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- CMS has flagged it for abuse
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Jan 2026
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
- a high number of inspection citations overall (15) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $19,149 in federal fines (most recent 2026-01-28)
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
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 | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | Not rated |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 2 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 1 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating 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.
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 | 10.1% | 11.9% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 13.7% | 6.3% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 5.0% | 0.6% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.3% | 1.3% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.8% | 3.1% | 6.5% | better 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 | 0.0% | 3.2% | 3.3% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 9.7% | 12.7% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 23.7% | 21.0% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 89.1% | 90.6% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 10.0% | 5.1% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 33.7% | 16.7% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 17.9% | 15.3% | 17.1% | typical |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.7% | 1.5% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 39.3% | 78.0% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 27.7% | 24.3% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 19.5% | 13.9% | 12.0% | worse |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ 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.
49.9% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 40 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 45.7% 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 35 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 0.41 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 71% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 9% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 49.9%CMS range 34.5–63.8 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 12.1%CMS range 8.5–19.1 | 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 | 45.7% | 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 | 40.0% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 62.9% | 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 | 93.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 1.8% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 7.4%CMS range 4.1–12.6 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.00 | 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
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.47 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.71 on weekdays — 26% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.83 to 0.33 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 55% 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.
15 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2024-02-02 · tag F0624 — isolatedPrepare residents for a safe transfer or discharge from the nursing home.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of the facility policy, record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to provide sufficient preparation and orientation to a resident to ensure safe and orderly discharge from the facility, for 1 of 3 residents. Specifically, Resident (CR)1 was transported and discharged from the facility on 01/23/24 to the local social security office. On 02/02/24 at 10:02 AM, the Administrator was notified that the failure to provide Resident (CR)1 with a safe discharge constituted Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) at F624. On 02/02/24 art 10:02 AM, the survey team provided the Administrator with a copy of the CMS Immediate Jeopardy Template and informed the facility IJ existed as of 01/23/24. The IJ was related to 42 CFR 483.15 - Admission, Transfer, and Discharge. On 02/02/24 at 3:53 PM, the facility provided an acceptable IJ Removal Plan. On 02/02/24, survey team validated the facility's corrective actions and removed the IJ. The facility remained out of compliance at F624 at a lower scope and severity of D.…
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.
- Actual harm · G2026-01-28 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of the facility policy, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident (R)1 was free from verbal abuse, for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for verbal abuse. Specifically, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)1, used curse words directed at R1 when R1 refused to take her medications. Findings include:Review of the facility policy titled Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation documented, It is the policy of this facility to provide protection for the, welfare and rights of each resident by developing and implementing written policies and procedures that prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, exploitation and misappropriation of resident property. Under definitions: the definition of abuse, means the willful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or punishment with resulting physical harm, pain or mental anguish. Abuse also includes the deprivation by an individual, including a caretaker, of goods or services that are necessary to attain or maintain physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. Instance of abuse of all residents, irrespective of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-01-28 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of facility policy, record review and interview, the facility failed to report an allegation of verbal abuse within the 2 hour reporting timeframe for an altercation between Resident (R)1 and Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)1 for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for abuse. Findings include:Review of the facility policy titled Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation documents under Section VII. Reporting/Reponse of Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation, When abuse, neglect or exploitation is suspected: 1. Immediately report all alleged violations to the Administrator, state agency, adult protective services and to all other required agencies (e.g. law enforcement when applicable) within specified time frames; 2. Assure that reporters are free from retaliation or reprisal; 3. Reporting to the state nurse aide registry or licensing authorities any knowledge it has of any actions by a court of law which would indicate an employee is unfit for service.Review of R1's Face Sheet revealed the facility admitted R1 with diagnoses including, but not limited to, anxiety, major depressive disorder,…
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 before2025-09-04 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of facility policy, observation and interview, the facility failed to follow Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) while providing care for Resident (R)4 for 1 of 1 resident observed receiving care while on EBP. The facility further failed to follow infection control protocols and procedures during laundry services in 1 of 1 laundry rooms. Findings include: (1) Review of the undated facility policy titled Enhanced Barrier Precautions revealed, Policy Statement Enhanced barrier precautions (EBPs) are utilized to prevent the spread of multi-drug resistant organisms (MDROs) to residents. Policy Interpretation and Implementation . 2. EBPs employ targeted gown and glove use during high-contact resident care activities when contact precautions do not otherwise apply. a. Gloves and gown are applied prior to performing the high contact resident care activity (as opposed to before entering the room). 3. Examples of high-contact resident care activities requiring the use of gown and gloves for EBPs include: a. dressing b. bathing/showering; c. transfering; d. providing hygiene;…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-09-04 · tag F0693 — failed to provide proper feeding-tube care — isolatedEnsure that feeding tubes are not used unless there is a medical reason and the resident agrees; and provide appropriate care for a resident with a feeding tube.
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 check the placement of a feeding tube for Resident (R)23 prior to flushing the feeding tube with 60 milliliters of water for 1 of 1 residents observed with a feeding tube. Review of the undated facility policy titled Medication Administration via Enteral Tube revealed, It is the policy of this facility to ensure the safe and effective administration of medications via enteral feeding tubes by utilizing best practice guidelines . Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: . 8. Enteral tube placement must be verified prior to administering any fluids or medication.Review of the undated facility policy titled Flushing a Feeding Tube revealed It is the policy of this facility to ensure that staff providing care and services to the resident via a feeding tube are aware of, and competent in, and utilize facility protocols regarding feeding nutrition and care. Feeding tube care and services will be provided in accordance with resident needs and professional standards of practice . Definition: Feeding…
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 · F2022-06-02 · 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 facility policies, the facility failed to store, prepare and serve foods under sanitary conditions in 1 of 1 main kitchen. This failure had the potential to increase the spread of foodborne illness to all residents. Findings Include: Review of the undated facility policy titled Food Storage, under the section Canned Foods, revealed, Dented or bulging cans shall be placed on damaged goods shelf and returned for credit. Review of the facility policy titled Serving Utensils dated 08/2018 revealed, Standard serving utensils will be used for serving appropriate products. Review of the undated facility policy titled Hand Washing and Glove Use, revealed, Guidelines for hand washing and glove use to promote safe and sanitary conditions throughout the department. Section 2 Handwashing Procedure: Hands must be washed prior . working with different food substances i.e. raw chicken to fresh fruit, following contact with any unsanitary surface i.e. touching hair sneezing, opening doors, etc. An observation during the initial tour of the main…
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 before2022-06-02 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure kitchen staff maintained appropriate infection control measures for the safe handling of foods in 1 of 1 main kitchen. This failure had the potential to increase the spread of foodborne illness to all residents, due to cross contamination. Findings Include: Review of the facility policy titled Serving Utensils dated 08/2018 revealed, Standard serving utensils will be used for serving appropriate products. Review of the undated facility policy titled, Hand Washing and Glove Use, revealed, Guidelines for hand washing and glove use to promote safe and sanitary conditions throughout the department. Section 2 Handwashing Procedure: Hands must be washed prior . working with different food substances i.e. raw chicken to fresh fruit, following contact with any unsanitary surface i.e. touching hair sneezing, opening doors, etc. During a follow-up observation of the main kitchen on 06/01/22 at 12:52 PM observations were made during temperatures of the tray line and food plating. Cook1 was observed…
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 · E2022-06-02 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — patternHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record reviews, interviews and review of the facility policy titled, Promoting/Maintaining Resident Dignity, the facility failed to ensure resident's call bells were answered timely for Resident (R)127, for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for call bells not being answered timely. The findings include: Review of the undated facility policy titled, Promoting/Maintaining Resident Dignity, states, Policy, It is the practice of this facility to protect and promote resident rights and treat each resident with respect and dignity as well as care for each resident in a manner and in an environment, that maintains or enhances resident's quality of life by recognizing each resident's individuality. Compliance Guidelines: 1. All staff members are involved in providing care to residents to promote and maintain resident dignity and respect resident rights. 4. The resident's former lifestyle and personal choices will be considered when providing care and services to meet the resident's needs and preferences. 6. Respond to requests for assistance in a timely manner. 14. Each resident will be…
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 · E2022-06-02 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — patternSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, interviews and review of the facility weight policy, the facility failed to follow the physician orders and facility policy regarding accurate and timely recordings of weights for Resident (R)24, R26 and R7 in order to collaborate care with the residents physician and the Registered Dietitian for 3 of 3 residents reviewed for Nutrition. Findings include: Review of the facility's weight policy (undated) states If the month-to-month weight has more than a 5% (percent) change, then the weight will be retaken within 24 hours and in the presence of a licensed personnel and Weights will be obtained on all other residents on the 5th of each month 1. On 06/02/22 at approximately 09:25 AM, a six month review of the medical record for R24, who had been admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including, but not limited to diabetes mellitus and cirrhosis of liver, revealed a physician order for weights to be taken monthly on the 5th of the month. Further review showed that all weights taken…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-06-02 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record reviews, interviews, and review of the facility policy titled, Notification of Changes, the facility failed to notify the attending physician and the personal representative of a significant weight loss for Resident (R)7 and R26, for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for nutrition. The findings include: Review of the undated facility policy titled, Notification of Changes, states, The purpose of this policy is to ensure the facility promptly informs the resident, consults the resident's physician; and notify, consistent with his her authority, resident's representative when there is a change requiring notification. Circumstances requiring notification include: 2. Significant change in the resident's physical , mental psychosocial condition such as deterioration in health, mental or psychosocial status. 3. Circumstances that require a need to alter treatment. Additional considerations: Competent individuals: The facility must still contact the resident's physician and notify resident's representative, if known. Residents incapable of making decisions: The representative would…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-06-02 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the Comprehensive Plan of Care was reviewed and revised with interventions to prevent weight loss and or decrease further weight loss for Resident #26 and Resident #7 for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for Nutrition. The findings included: The facility admitted R26 on 2/2/2022 with diagnoses including, but not limited to, Protein-Calorie Malnutrition, Seizures, Metabolic Encephalopathy, Disorder of the Thyroid, Autistic Disorder, and Tube Feeding. Review on 5/31/2022 at 5:24 PM of the Comprehensive Plan of Care for Resident #26 states under, Need, states, Resident is at risk for weight loss. NPO (nothing by mouth) receives enteral feeding per MD order. Jevity 1.5 can bolus, 6 times daily with 50ml flush before and after each bolus administered. Include 350 mls of water with/in between administration of bolus feed to total 2080 mls of water in 24 hours. Goals: Resident will not have a significant weight loss through review period. The Interventions include: Keep HOB (head of bed) elevated minimal 30 degrees.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-06-02 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, review of medical records, interviews and review of the facility policy titled, Wound Treatment Guidelines, the facility failed to ensure a procedure was followed during wound care to prevent infection and to promote wound healing for Resident (R)7. Specifically, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 failed to clean scissors before use, during a dressing change for R7 for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for wound care. The findings included: Review on 6/1/2022 at 10:47 AM of the wound care policy titled, Wound Treatment Guidelines, states, To promote wound healing of various types of wounds, it is the policy of this facility to provide evidence based treatments in accordance with current standards of practice and physician orders. The facility admitted R7 on 4/7/2022 with diagnoses including, but not limited to, Rhabdomyolysis, Hyponatremia, Volume Depletion and Pressure Ulcers. Review on 5/31/2022 at 5:24 PM of the medical record revealed a physician's order which read: Clean area to left buttock with wound cleanser, apply Calcium Alginate, and cover with border 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 · D2022-06-02 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record reviews, interviews, and review of the facility policy titled Weight Prevention, the facility failed to monitor weights and to ensure interventions were put into place to prevent further weight loss or to decrease weight loss for Resident (R)26 and R7 for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for nutrition. The Findings include: Review of the undated facility policy titled, Weight Prevention, states, The Registered Dietician/Designee will review the patient/resident's nutritional status to prevent and control undesirable weight loss. The Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines, are as follows: 1. Input monthly weights into the computer. Review the computer-generated weight reports to identify significant eight changes and insidious weight trends. 8. Address significant weight loss or gain in the dietary progress notes and by developing and/or updating the plan of care. 9. Determine why weight loss has occurred. With patient/resident input, develop an appropriate plan to increase intake. 11. Supplements as ordered. The facility admitted R26 on 2/2/22 with 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.
- Potential for harm · D2022-06-02 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
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 interviews, record reviews, review of facility policy titled, Unnecessary Drugs - Without Adequate Indication for Use, the facility failed to ensure Resident (R)179 was free from an unnecessary medication, Seroquel, an antipsychotic medication for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for Unnecessary Medications. Findings Include: Review of the undated facility policy titled, Unnecessary Drugs - Without Adequate Indication for Use revealed, It is the facility's policy that each resident's drug regimen is managed and monitored to promote or maintain the resident's highest practicable mental, physical, and psychosocial well-being . 2. The attending physician will assume leadership in medication management . taking into consideration the following elements: a. Dose b. Duration of use c. Indications and clinical need for medication. 3. Documentation will be provided in the resident's medical record to show adequate indications for medication's use and the diagnosed condition for which it was prescribed. The facility…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-06-02 · tag F0908 — failed to keep essential equipment working — isolatedKeep all essential equipment working safely.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, and review of the facility policy titled, Dryer Vents/Lint Check, the facility failed to remove an excessive amount of lint built up on the wiring above the lint basket and the inside upper three sides of 1 of 1 clothes dryers Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Dryer Vents/Lint Check states, Confirm that the lint is removed from the stack and inside the dryer. It is a fire hazard and a code violation if this is not maintained. Laundry staff will check and clean daily. Lint Catch/Screens: 1. Lint catchers should be cleaned after each load. 3. A fine layer of lint can form across the screen and stop the flow of clean air out of the dryer, hampering the speed of drying the items. An observation on 6/2/22 at 8:35 AM revealed an excessive amount of lint over the lint basket on the wiring and on the inside upper 3 sides of 1 clothes dryer. An interview on 6/2/22 at 8:40 AM with the laundry worker and the Housekeeping Supervisor confirmed the findings.
“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
$19,149 in federal fines across 2 penalties.
- $9,110 — penalty dated 2026-01-28
- $10,039 — penalty dated 2024-02-02
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 / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GRIFFIN, KATHRYN | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; GENERAL PARTNERSHIP INTEREST | 20% | since 07/01/2017 |
| SMITH, JAMES | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST; GENERAL PARTNERSHIP INTEREST; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF; ADP OF THE SNF | 40% | since 06/30/2020 |
| BRIGHT, JANICE | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/05/2025 |
| SANTIAGO, KENNETH | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/05/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 11 rows in the source record cover these 4 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in SC
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the South Carolina Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 425416. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-09-04, 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.