Manna Post Acute
716 E Cedar Rock St, Pickens, SC 29671 · For profit - Corporation · 130 certified beds · (864) 878-4739 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (22% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0565)
- 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
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 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 | 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 improved from 3 to 4 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 | 9.3% | 11.9% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.6% | 6.3% | 5.4% | typical |
| 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 | 0.3% | 1.3% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.9% | 3.1% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 1.3% | 0.1% | 0.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 4.0% | 3.2% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 11.6% | 12.7% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 30.4% | 21.0% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 93.1% | 90.6% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.5% | 5.1% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 19.9% | 16.7% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 8.8% | 15.3% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.5% | 1.5% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 73.9% | 78.0% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 29.0% | 24.3% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 15.3% | 13.9% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.29 | 2.04 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.21 | 1.84 | 1.80 | worse |
‡ 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.
55.3% 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 177 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 61.3% 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 31 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 0.50 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 81% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 12% 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 | 55.3%CMS range 47.7–61.4 | 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 | 11.8%CMS range 8.5–14.8 | 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 | 61.3% | 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 | 54.8% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 64.5% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 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 | 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 | 93.3% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 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 | 3.5% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 7.3%CMS range 4.4–11.4 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.25 | 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 130 beds and averages 123.4 residents a day — about 95% occupied, or roughly 7 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 3.45 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.57 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.05 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.17 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.56 on weekdays — 11% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.65 to 0.37 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 22% is below 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 unchanged from the previous inspection. 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 · F2026-05-21 · 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 observation, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to date, label, and/or cover food products stored in the kitchen. This failure had the potential to create an environment for food-borne illnesses which could affect 122 of 124 residents who consume food prepared from the facility's kitchen.Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Food Storage and Retention Guide, which indicated, . that at a minimum, all food shall be labeled with the item name and the date opened. Further: The dietary department is responsible for routinely reviewing these guides to ensure that all food items are used within safe storage timeframes and that expired, unlabeled, or compromised items are promptly removed from service. During an observation on 05/19/26 from 9:25 AM to 10:05 AM, with the Dietary Manager (DM), revealed the following: - The main refrigerator contained six slices of turkey in plastic wrap with no date label. - 24 hardboiled eggs in plastic wrap with no date label. - A rack of 24 pork ribs wrapped in plastic with no date label. - 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 · D2026-05-21 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure Resident (R)3's fingernails were kept clean and trimmed for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for activities of daily living out of 24 sampled residents. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Fingernails/Toenails, Care of, with a revision date of 02/18 noted, . The purpose of this procedure are to clean the nail bed, to keep nails trimmed, and to prevent infections. General Guidelines: 1. Nail care includes daily cleaning and regular trimming. 2. Proper nail care can aid in the prevention of skin problems around the nail bed. 4. Trimmed and smooth nails prevent the resident from accidentally scratching and injuring his or her skin. Documentation. The following information should be recorded in the resident's medical record: 1. The date and time that nail care was given. 2. The name and title of the individual(s) who administered the nail care. 6. If the resident refused the treatment, the reason(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 · D2026-05-21 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure Resident (R)93, who was admitted to the facility with a contracture, was provided with the services to prevent further decrease in range of motion/mobility for 1 out of 2 residents reviewed for contractures out of a total sample of 24 residents.Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Resident Mobility and Range of Motion, revised on 07/17 noted, . 1. Residents will not experience an avoidable reduction in range of motion (ROM). 2. Residents with limited range of motion will receive treatment and services to increase and/or prevent a further decrease in ROM. Policy Interpretation and Implementation: . 6. Interventions may include therapies, the provision of necessary equipment, and/or exercise and will be based on professional standards or practice and be consistent with state laws and practice acts. Review of R93's admission Record, located under the Profile tab of the electronic medical…
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 · D2026-05-21 · 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 observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to follow physician's order for oxygen administration and to have storage bags present in accordance with professional standards of practice, while administering oxygen to 2 residents (Resident (R)3 and R93) of 2 reviewed for respiratory care out of a total sample of 24 residents.Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Oxygen Administration, with a revision date of 10/18 noted, . The purpose of this procedure is to provide guidelines for safe oxygen administration. Preparation: 1. Verify that there is a physician's order for the procedure. Review the physician's order for oxygen administration. 1. Review of R3's admission Record, located under the Profile tab of the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed R3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including but not limited to respiratory failure with hypercapnia, chronic pulmonary edema, bronchitis, seasonal allergies, and chronic…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-05-21 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to obtain a physician's order for isolation. Additionally, the facility did not ensure that appropriate isolation waste receptacles were available in the resident's room, and staff improperly disposed of isolation materials in the residents personal trash can for 1 of 1 resident, (Resident (R)28), reviewed for transmission based precautions out of a total of 24 sampled residents. These failures created a risk of contamination and increased the likelihood of transmitting infection to others. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Isolation- Transmission- Based Precautions & Enhanced Barrier Precautions, with a revision date of 09/22 indicated, . Transmission-based precautions are initiated when a resident develops signs and symptoms of a transmissible infection; arrives for admission with symptoms of an infection; or has a laboratory confirmed infection; and is at risk of transmitting the infection to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-05-01 · 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 observations and interviews, the facility failed to provide dignity for Resident (R)32 by having a Foley catheter, not in a privacy bag, exposed for the public to see who walk past his room on multiple occasions. The findings include: A review of the facility policy titled Resident's Rights with a revision date of August 2022 revealed that Employees shall treat all residents with Kindness, Respect, and Dignity. A review of the facility policy titled Urinary Drainage Bag Protocol with no revision date revealed- The drainage bag will be placed in a privacy bag. R32 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including, but not limited to benign prostatic hyperplasia with lower urinary tract symptoms. R32's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) was a 06 out of 15, indicating R32 is severely cognitively impaired as of 3/15/2025 on the Quarterly MDS (Minimum Data Set). A review of R32's Care Plan, last revised in April 2025, revealed, Bladder: At risk for complications with urinary system…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-05-01 · tag F0565 — failed to support the resident council — isolatedHonor the resident's right to organize and participate in resident/family groups in the facility.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of the facility policy, observation and interview, the facility failed to provide privacy for nine (9) Resident (R) Council members (R8, R11, R100, R13, R80, R61, R35, R72, R38), who participated in a group interview with the surveyor. During the group interview in the facility's small dining room, two (2) staff persons passed through going to an outside smoking area and another two (2) staff persons passed on the opposite side going towards 200 hall. Findings include: Review of the facility policy, Resident Council effective date 12/31/2015 states, The activity staff arrange for a room for Council meeting. The Council meeting is held at regular scheduled intervals, at minimum monthly. The date, location and time is clearly posted on the activity schedule. On 04/30/25 at 11:30 AM, a Resident Council Meeting was held in the small dining room of the facility with the surveyor. The current Resident Council President was in attendance, with eight (8) other residents in attendance. There were no…
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 · D2025-05-01 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to follow physician orders for fluid restriction for Resident (R) 42, for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for dehydration. Findings include; Record review of R42 revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that include but not limited to; congestive heart failure, cerebral infarction, stiffness of right hand and acute respiratory failure with hypoxia (tissue and organs are not receiving enough oxygen). Record review of R42's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an assessment reference date of 02/05/2025, recorded his Brief Interview Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, indicated he was cognitively intact. Record review of R42's physician order dated 04/07/2025 revealed an order, 1500 milliliters (ml) in 24 hours, fluid restriction. First shift, 870 ml, (Breakfast Tray 360 ml, Lunch Tray 240, Med Pass 270); 2nd Shift 510 ml (Supper Tray 240, Med Pass 270); 3rd Shift 120 ml, every shift for heart failure. Additional physician…
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 · D2025-05-01 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on facility policy, observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to remove expired, discontinued medications and biologicals from the medication room, treatment cart and medication cart. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure narcotic refrigerated medications were stored in permanently affixed compartments for 2 of 2 units reviewed for medication storage. Findings include; Review of the facility policy with a revision date of [DATE], titled, Medication Labeling and Storage revealed If the facility has discontinued, outdated, or deteriorated medications or biolgicals, the dispensing pharmacy is contacted for instructions regarding returning or destroying these items. Controlled substances and other drugs subject to abuse are separately locked in permanently affixed compartments. An observation on [DATE] at 8:40 AM of the TCU Unit Long Hall Treatment Cart with Registered Nurse (RN)1 revealed the following: 2 tubes of Santyl ointment, undated, open with partial contents removed and no…
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 before2025-05-01 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of the facility policy, Center for Disease Control (CDC) website, observation, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure infection control was maintained for (Resident (R) 42 for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for infection control. Findings include; Review of the facility policy revised October 2018, titled Clostridium Difficile recorded in the policy statement, Measures are taken to prevent the occurrence of Clostridium Difficile infections among residents. Precautions are taking while caring for residents with C. Difficile to prevent transmission to other residents. Review of the facility policy revised September 2022, titled, Isolation-Transmission Based Precautions and Enhanced Barrier Precautions under policy statement states, Transmission based precautions are initiated when a resident develops signs and symptoms of a transmissible infections, has a laboratory confirmed infection, and is at risk of transmitting the infection to other residents. Under Contact Precautions, the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
Show the remaining 6 citations
- Potential for harm · D2023-09-08 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to complete a thorough investigation of an accident resulting in a fracture for one (Resident (R) 83) of eight sampled resident reviewed for accidents. There was no evidence the facility interviewed all staff on duty at the time of the accident to help determine the cause of the accident. This lack of investigation had the potential to place other dependent residents at risk for injury. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Incidents and Accidents- Investigating and Reporting, revised 07/2017, revealed, . 1. The Nurse Supervisor/Charge Nurse and/or the department director or supervisor shall promptly initiate and document investigation of the incident or accident. 2. The following data, as applicable, shall be included on the Report of Incident/Accident form: a. The date and time the incident/accident took place. b. The nature of the injury/illness . c. The circumstances surrounding the incident/accident. d. Where the incident/accident took place. e. The name(s) of witnesses and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-09-08 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, staff interview, and review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual, the facility failed to ensure one (Resident (R) 18) of 30 sampled residents had an accurate Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment. Failure to code the MDS correctly could potentially lead to inaccurate federal reimbursements and inaccurate assessment and care planning of the resident. Findings include: Review of R18's undated admission Record located in the electronic medical record (EMR) under the Profile tab, revealed R18 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a primary diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and comorbidities including anxiety disorder (DO), bipolar disorder (DO), and major depressive disorder (MDD). Review of R18's Physician Orders, dated 06/29/23 and located in the EMR under the Orders tab, revealed R18 was to receive Zoloft (an antidepressant) 50 mg (milligram) tablet every morning for MDD. Review of R18's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-09-08 · tag F0644 — isolatedCoordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to refer two (Resident (R) 50 and R2) of three sampled residents reviewed for Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) for a Level II PASRR resident review after the resident received a new diagnosis of a mental illness and/or experienced a significant change in status assessment related to their mental illness. This had the potential to cause R50 and R2 to not receive necessary mental health services. Findings include: 1. Review of R50's Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) Level I Screening Tool, dated 08/14/23 and located under the Misc (Miscellaneous) tab of the electronic medical record (EMR), revealed R50 had a diagnosis or evidence of a major mental illness and had a significant impairment in functioning related to a suspected or known diagnosis of mental illness of anxiety, depression, and bipolar. Review of R50's admission Record, located under the Profile tab of the EMR, revealed R50 was admitted to the facility on [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 · D2023-09-08 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a person-centered comprehensive plan of care with measurable goals and plans related to the use of a wander guard alarm for one resident (Resident (R) R105) of 30 sampled residents reviewed for care plans. Findings include: Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 RAI Manual, dated 10/2019, indicated, . Care Area Assessment (CAA) Process. This process is designed to assist the assessor to systematically interpret the information recorded on the MDS . The CAA process helps the clinician to focus on key issues identified during the assessment process so that decisions as to whether and how to intervene can be explored with the resident . Specific components of the CAA process include: - Care Area Triggers (CATs) are specific resident responses for one or a combination of MDS elements. The triggers identify residents who have or are at risk for developing specific functional problems and require further assessment . The…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-09-08 · 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 interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure one (Resident (R) 18) of two sampled residents reviewed for smoking was free of potential accidents while residing in the facility. Specifically, R18 did not receive a quarterly smoking assessment. This had the potential for increased risk of injury related to smoking for the resident. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Smoking Policy-Residents, revised 08/2022, revealed, . The resident will be evaluated on admission to determine if he or she is a smoker or non-smoker . A resident's ability to smoke safely will be re-evaluated quarterly, upon significant change (physical or cognitive) and as determined by the staff . Review of R18's undated admission Record, located in the electronic medical record (EMR) under the Profile tab, revealed R18 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a primary diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Review of R18's Care Plan, located in the EMR under the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-09-08 · tag F0806 — failed to honor food preferences — isolatedEnsure each resident receives and the facility provides food that accommodates resident allergies, intolerances, and preferences, as well as appealing options.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to honor food preferences for one (Resident (R) 212) of 32 sampled residents reviewed for food preferences. R212 was served a food item that was recorded as a food dislike on her meal ticket. Findings include: Review of R212's admission Record, located under the Profile tab of the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed R212 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included moderate protein-calorie malnutrition and dysphagia. Review of R212's meal tracker diet order slip, provided by the Kitchen Manager (KM), revealed documentation that R212 disliked carrots and peas. During an interview on 09/06/23 at 11:30 AM, R212; who was alert and oriented to person, place, and time; stated she did not like peas but had been served peas three times since her admission on [DATE]. R212 stated she had informed the staff she did not like peas. During an interview on 09/07/23 at 2:01 PM, the KM stated the Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) visited with new…
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 | 3 of 5 | 2.9 | +0.1 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 2.5 | +0.5 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 | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PALMETTO COMMUNITY HEALTHCARE, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 06/29/2021 |
| DAHLHAUSEN, DANIEL | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 09/01/2021 |
| GRIGGS, TODD | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 06/01/2009 |
| APT, FREDERICK | 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 |
1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $467K 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 425084. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-05-21, 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.