Edisto Post Acute
575 Stonewall Jackson Boulevard, Orangeburg, SC 29115 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 113 certified beds · (803) 534-7771 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- 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
- a high number of inspection citations overall (16) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (61%) 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.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 1 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 1 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 | 3.8% | 11.9% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.4% | 6.3% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.6% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 1.3% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 2.0% | 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 | 0.3% | 3.2% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 4.7% | 12.7% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 11.9% | 21.0% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 84.0% | 90.6% | 95.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.7% | 5.1% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 14.7% | 16.7% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 20.2% | 15.3% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.2% | 1.5% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 52.0% | 78.0% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 20.9% | 24.3% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 12.7% | 13.9% | 12.0% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.89 | 2.04 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.36 | 1.84 | 1.80 | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
59.0% 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 45 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 50.0% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 24 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.29 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 46% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 10% 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 | 59.0%CMS range 42.8–72.7 | 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 | 11.0%CMS range 8.0–15.9 | 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 | 50.0% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 41.7% | 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 | 54.2% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not 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 discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 5.3% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.9%CMS range 3.6–12.6 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.91 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 113 beds and averages 104.3 residents a day — about 92% occupied, or roughly 9 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 3.09 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.20 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.78 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 2.86 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.18 on weekdays — 10% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.20 to 0.18 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 61% is well above the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are 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.
16 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 6 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · F2025-09-18 · tag F0732 — widespreadPost nurse staffing information every day.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure accurate posting of licensed staff with hours worked for multiple dates. Reviewed staffing as posted from 10/01/24 through 09/14/25.Findings include: Review of the daily staffing posted as worked from 10/01/24 - 09/14/25 revealed 9 days a Registered Nurse (RN) was not listed for the required 8 consecutive hours in each 24-hour period. During an interview on 09/17/25 at 11:55 AM the Staffing Coordinator revealed the staffing for the dates in question were reviewed. The Staffing Coordinator confirmed that the postings were inaccurate and/or incomplete. The Staffing Coordinator stated, The central supply clerk and I put in the numbers on the staff postings. Human resources verifies that the postings are correct. During an interview on 09/17/25 at 12:24 AM the Regional Director of Quality Assurance and the Director of Nursing confirmed that a registered nurse was not listed on the posted staffing for the above-mentioned days and stated they were not aware that the hours were inaccurate and/or incomplete on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2025-09-18 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to store and prepare food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in 1 of 1 main kitchen and 3 of 3 nourishment rooms, placing all residents who eat from the kitchen at risk for foodborne illness.Findings include:Review of a facility policy titled, Food Receiving and Storage last revised July 2014, states, Policy Statement: Foods shall be received and stored in a manner that complies with safe food handling practices. Policy Interpretation and Implementation: . 2. When food is delivered to the facility it will be inspected for safe transport and quality before being accepted. All foods stored in the refrigerator or freezer will be covered, labeled and dated . 12. Uncooked and raw animal products and fish will be stored separately in drip-proof containers and below fruits, vegetables and other ready-to-eat foods. 13. Food items and snacks kept on the nursing units must be maintained as indicated below:…
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 · F2025-09-18 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — widespreadDispose of garbage and refuse properly.
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 that the lids on trash containers were kept closed when not in use. During an observation, one trash container lid remained open due to a tree branch obstructing closure.Review of the facility policy titled Food-Related Garbage and Refuse Disposal last revised on October 2017, states: Food-related garbage and refuse are disposed of in accordance with current state laws. The Policy Interpretation and Implementation, states, 1. All food waste shall be kept in containers. 2. All garbage and refuse containers are provided with tight-fitting lids or covers and must be kept covered when stored or not in continuous use. 5. Garbage and refuse containing food wastes will be stored in manner that is inaccessible to pests. 6. Storage areas will be kept clean at all times and shall not constitute a nuisance. 7. Outside dumpsters provided by garbage pickup services will be kept closed and free of surrounding litter.During an observation and interview with the Kitchen Manager (KM) on 09/16/25 from 8:25…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-09-18 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to provide dignity and respect for Resident (R)80 and his personal space/room, when a staff member was taking a break in R80's room.Findings include:Review of the facility policy titled Dignity last revised on February 2021, revealed Each resident shall be cared for in a manner that promotes and enhances his or her sense of well-being, level of satisfaction with life, and feelings of self-worth and self-esteem. Policy interpretation and implementation include residents are treated with dignity and respect at all times. Resident's private space and property are respected at all times. Staff do not handle or move a resident's personal belonging without the resident's permission.Review of R80's Face Sheet revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnoses including but not limited to cerebral pasly, bipolar disorder, muscle spasm, and lack of coordination.Review of R80's Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-09-18 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolatedKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to provide Resident (R)89 the right to privacy, by failing to adequately secure her Electronic Medical Record (EMR), for 1 of 2 reviewed for resident rights. Findings include:Review of the facility policy titled Dignity last revised on February 2021 revealed, Each resident shall be cared for in a manner that promotes and enhances his or her sense of well-being, level of satisfaction with life, and feelings of self-worth and self-esteem. Staff protect confidential clinical information. Examples include the following: verbal staff-to-staff communication; signs indicating the resident clinical status or care needs are not openly posted in the resident's room unless specifically requested by the resident or family member.Review of the facility policy titled Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Training Program, last revised on April 2007, revealed, All facility personnel, including business…
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 · D2025-09-18 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews, record reviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to report an allegation of abuse involving Resident (R)121, to the state agency in the required time frame, for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for alleged abuse.Findings include:Review of the facility policy titled, Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation or Misappropriation- Reporting and Investigating with a revision date of September 2022 revealed, All reports of resident abuse (including injuries of unknown origin), neglect, exploitation, or theft/misappropriation of resident property are reported to local, state, and federal agencies (as required by current regulations) and thoroughly investigated by facility management. Findings of all investigations are documented and reported. Policy Interpretation and Implementation: Reporting Allegations to the Administrator and Authorities 1. If resident abuse, neglect, exploitation, misappropriation of resident property or injury of unknown source is suspected, the suspicion must be reported…
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 · D2025-09-18 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to revise/update Resident (R)80's Care Plan in a timely manner, after R80 expressed suicidal idealizations, a significant change in the resident's mood status, for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for mood/behavior. Findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled Care Planning - Interdisciplinary Team last revised on March 2022 revealed, The interdisciplinary team is responsible for the development of resident care plans. Policy interpretation and implementation include resident care plans are developed according to the timeframes and criteria established by federal guidelines. Comprehensive, person-centered care plans are based on resident assessment and developed by an interdisciplinary team (IDT). The IDT includes but is not limited to: the resident's attending physician; a registered nurse with responsibility for the resident; a nursing assistant with responsibility for the resident; a member of the food and nutrition…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-09-18 · tag F0679 — failed to provide activities — isolatedProvide activities to meet all resident's needs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to assess and provide Resident (R)101 with activities to meet her interests and needs for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for activities. Findings include:Review of the facility policy titled Activity Programs last revised on June 2018 revealed, Activity programs are designed to meet the interests of and support the physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident. Policy interpretation and implementation include the activities program is provided to support the well-being of residents and to encourage both independence and community interaction. Activities offered are based on the comprehensive resident-centered assessment and the preferences of each resident. The activities program is ongoing and includes facility-organized group activities, independent individual activities and assisted individual activities.Review of R101's Face Sheet revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] 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 · D2025-02-20 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of the facility policy, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to complete fall risk assessments in a timely manner for 1 of 1 resident (Resident (R)1). Findings include: Review of facility policy titled, Quarterly Assessments revealed, 2. Three Quarterly assessments are completed in each 12-month period, assuming the resident does not have a Significant Change in Status Assessment (SCSA) or Significant Correction to Prior Comprehensive Assessment (SCPA) completed and was not discharged from the nursing home. Record review of R1's Face Sheet revealed, R1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including but not limited to; fracture of right femur, subsequent encounter for closed fracture with routine healing, repeated falls, osteoarthritis, and abnormalities of gait and mobility. Record review of R1's Care Plan dated 12/20/24 revealed, Focus: Resident is at risk for falls related to medication regimen, anxiety, Depression, HX falls. Fall 12/5/2024. Revision on 1/15/2025.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-06-21 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor 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 observation, interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to treat residents with respect and dignity for two sampled residents (Resident (R)28 and R64) as evidence by staff standing over the residents while assisting them with eating their meals. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Assistance with Meals revealed: 2. Facility staff will serve resident trays and will help residents who require assistance with eating. 3. Residents who cannot feed themselves will be fed with attention to safety, comfort and dignity, for example: a. Not standing over residents while assisting them with meals; b. keeping interactions with other staff to minimum while assisting residents with meals; c. avoiding the use of labels when referring to residents (e.g., feeders); and d. avoiding the use of bibs or clothing protectors instead of napkins, unless requested by the resident. Observation during lunch meal on 6/18/24 at 12:34 PM showed Certified Nurse Aide (CNA)1 was observed feeding R64, while she was standing over the resident. Further observations on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
Show the remaining 6 citations
- Potential for harm · D2024-06-21 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, interview with facility staff and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure the comprehensive assessment for one (1) of 21 residents reviewed was completed accurately (Resident (R)77). Findings include: Review of facility policy titled Electronic Transmission of the MDS revealed the Policy Interpretation and Implementation stated 8. The MDS coordinator is responsible for ensuring that appropriate edits are made prior to transmitting MDS data and that feedback and validation reports from each transmission are maintained for historical purposes and for tracking. Review of the medical record for R77 revealed an admission date of 5/28/24. Diagnoses included metabolic encephalopathy, dementia and depression. Review of the Physician's Orders for R77 revealed Physician's Orders for Quetiapine Fumarate (Seroquel-an antipsychotic) 25 mg (milligrams) at bedtime, and Escitalopram Oxalate (Lexapro-an antidepressant) 10 mg by mouth daily. Review of the Medication Administration Record for R77 for the months of May 2024 and June 2024 revealed R77 received…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-06-21 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview with facility staff the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident identified services to be provided to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental and psychosocial well-being by not initiating a care plan for the use of antipsychotic medications for one (1) of 21 residents whose care plans were reviewed (Resident (R)77). The findings include: Review of the medical record for R77 revealed an admission date of 5/28/24. Diagnoses included Metabolic Encephalopathy, Dementia and Depression. Review of the Physician's Orders for R77 revealed Physician's Orders for Quetiapine Fumarate (Seroquel-an antipsychotic) 25 mg (milligrams) at bedtime, and Escitalopram Oxalate (Lexapro-an antidepressant) 10 mg by mouth daily. Review of the Medication Administration Record for R77 for the months of May 2024 and June 2024 revealed R77 received Seroquel and Lexapro from 5/28/24 through 6/18/24. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for R77, with an Assessment Reference Date…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-06-21 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure that food was served to residents in a manner that would ensure the prevention and spread of disease or potential infection for two (2) sampled residents (R28 and R64) during meals observation. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Handwashing/Hand Hygiene revealed: This facility considers hand hygiene the primary means to prevent the spread of healthcare-associated infections. The policy further revealed, Administrative Practices to Promote Hand Hygiene 1. All personnel are trained and regularly in-serviced on the importance of hand hygiene in preventing the transmission of healthcare-associated infections. 2. All personnel are expected to adhere to hand hygiene policies and practices to help prevent the spread of infections to other personnel, residents, and visitors. Observation during lunch meal on 6/18/24 at 12:34 PM showed Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA)1 was observed feeding R64. Observed CNA2 setting up R28 meal on the food tray while he/she was still 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 · Dcited before2022-05-12 · tag F0679 — failed to provide activities — isolatedProvide activities to meet all resident's needs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to provide an individualized activity program for two Resident (R) 88 and R296 of 29 sampled residents. This had the potential for the residents to feel isolated and not promote their quaility of life. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Activity Programs revised 08/06 revealed 1. Our activity programs are designed to encourage maximum individual participation and are geared to the individual resident's needs .6. Scheduled activities are posted on the resident bulletin board. Activity schedules are also provided individually to residents who cannot access the bulletin board (e.g., bed bound or visually impaired residents) . 7. Individualized and group activities are provided that: a. reflect the schedules, choices and rights of the residents; b. Are offered at hours convenient to the residents, including evenings, holidays and weekends . 1. Review of R88's undated admission Record found in R88's…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-05-12 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure that a resident's physician orders for emergency respiratory equipment was kept at the bedside for one of one (Resident (R) 45) reviewed for respiratory care. This failed practice placed the resident at risk for respiratory distress. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Tracheostomy Care revised 08/13 revealed, .A replacement tracheostomy tube must be available at the bedside at all times . Review of R45's admission Record found in the electronic medical record (EMR) under the Profile tab, revealed R45 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a primary diagnosis of esophageal obstruction. Review of R45's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) date of 06/13/21 indicated the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12 out of 15 indicating resident had moderate cognitive impairment. R45's diagnoses included esophageal…
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 · D2022-05-12 · tag F0726 — failed to have competent, trained nursing staff — isolatedEnsure that nurses and nurse aides have the appropriate competencies to care for every resident in a way that maximizes each resident's well being.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on document review, interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure two Licensed Practical Nurses (LPN8 and LPN9) were completely trained on tracheal care and safety measures for one of one (Resident (R) 45) reviewed for trach status. Findings include: Review of the facility's undated policy titled Edisto Post Acute Facility Assessment 2021 revealed §483.95 Training Requirements. A facility must develop, implement, and maintain an effective training program for all new and existing staff; individuals providing services under a contractual arrangement; and volunteers, consistent with their expected roles. A facility must determine the amount and types of training necessary based on a facility assessment as specified at §483.70(e) . Review of an undated document titled Long Term Care Essential Clinical Assessment provided by the facility indicated LPN8 and LPN9 did not receive trach care training. An interview on 05/11/22 at 11:21 AM with LPN8 revealed she worked at the facility through a staffing agency and was not sure when she last had trach care…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to PACS GROUP — 274 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 1 of 5 | 2.9 | -1.9 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 2.5 | -0.5 vs chain |
| Staffing | 1 of 5 | 2.5 | -1.5 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 4.4 | -0.4 vs chain |
The other 273 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.9★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 273; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| NEWLANDS, FRANK | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE | since 06/01/2022 |
| JENNINGS, MARK | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | since 03/19/2024 |
| APT, FREDERICK | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2024 |
| HANCOCK, MARK | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2024 |
| JERGENSEN, JOSHUA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2024 |
| MITCHELL, JOHN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2024 |
The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
About 71% 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 $538K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in SC
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the South Carolina Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 425116. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-09-18, 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.