Westminster Health & Rehab Center
831 McDow Drive, Rock Hill, SC 29732 · Non profit - Church related · 11 certified beds · (803) 328-5000 Medicare only — no Medicaid
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (29% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
- inspectors recorded 1 serious finding as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
- the CMS record shows $16,997 in federal fines (most recent 2024-01-12)
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) | 4 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 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 4 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 5 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.4% | 1.5% | 1.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 93.2% | 78.0% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 22.4% | 24.3% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 10.8% | 13.9% | 12.0% | typical |
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.
59.8% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 121 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 56.4% 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 55 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 0.46 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 77% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 19% 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 | 59.8%CMS range 51.9–68.4 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.7%CMS range 7.2–14.3 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 56.4% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 40.0% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 40.0% | 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 | 83.6% | 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 | 97.4% | 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 | 0.0% | 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 3.8–12.1 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.81 | 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 11 beds and averages 6.5 residents a day — about 59% occupied, or roughly 4 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. 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 3.85 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.66 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.36 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 2.84 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.26 on weekdays — 33% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 1.99 to 0.81 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 29% 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.
11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2024-01-12 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of facility policy, interview and record review, the facility failed to accurately notify the physician of all pertinent information with regards to a significant medication error. Specifically, on [DATE], the facility reported to the Medical Director that Resident (R)1 received twice the dosage of insulin when R1 actually received ten times the dosage of insulin. Furthermore, the facility failed to notify the Medical Director of changes in blood sugar for a two-hour period. On [DATE] at approximately 3:00 PM, the State Agency (SA) determined that the facility's non-compliance with one or more federal health, safety, and/or quality regulations has caused or was likely to cause serious injury, serious harm, serious impairment, or death. On [DATE] at 6:15 PM, the facility was notified that the failure to accurately notify the physician that Resident (R)1 received 80 units of insulin and the failure to continuously notify the physician of R1's blood sugars after the medication error constituted…
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.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2024-01-12 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of facility policy, interview and record review, the facility failed to protect 1 of 4 residents from significant medication errors. Specifically, on [DATE] at 1:19 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)1 administered 80 units of insulin to Resident (R)1 when he was supposed to receive 8 units. This failure placed R1 at risk for serious harm and/or death due low blood sugars that could potentially cause seizures, hypoglycemic coma, or death. On [DATE] at approximately 3:00 PM, the State Agency (SA) determined that the facility's non-compliance with one or more federal health, safety, and/or quality regulations has caused or was likely to cause serious injury, serious harm, serious impairment, or death. On [DATE] at 6:15 PM, the facility was notified that the failure to administer the prescribed dosage of insulin to R1 constituted Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) at F760. The survey team provided the facility with a copy of the CMS Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) Template and informed the facility IJ existed as of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2026-02-25 · 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 ensure raw meat was stored properly in the walk-in refrigerator. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all 6 residents who currently resided in the facility.Findings included:Review of the facility policy titled, Food and Supply Storage, revised 01/2026, indicated, Separate cooked and raw foods. Store ready-to-eat (including pasteurized eggs) and cooked food above raw food. If raw animal foods are stored on the same rack, store them in the following order from top of the rack to the bottom of the rack: raw shell eggs, fish, whole cuts of beef, pork, ground meat and poultry.During a concurrent interview and observation of the walk-in refrigerator in the kitchen on 02/23/26 at 10:28 AM with the Administrator and Clinical Dietician, there were three boneless pork tenderloins located on the second shelf above a covered bowl of coleslaw and a covered bowl of fruit cocktail. Also, there was 15 pounds of raw bacon above some tomatoes. The Clinical Dietician stated the raw pork tenderloin…
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 · D2026-02-25 · tag F0628 — isolatedProvide the required documentation or notification related to the resident's needs, appeal rights, or bed-hold policies.
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 transfer and discharge notifications were sent to a representative of the State Long Term Care (LTC) Ombudsman for 2 (Resident (R)6 and R8) of 2 sampled closed records reviewed. Findings included: A facility policy titled, Transfer or Discharge Notices, revised 03/2025, indicated, 3. The facility will send a copy of the discharge notice to a representative of the Office of the State LTC Ombudsman. 4. Notice of the State LTC Ombudsman will occur at the same time as the notice of discharge is provided to the resident and resident representative. 1. A Resident Face Sheet revealed the facility admitted R8 on 11/06/25. According to the Resident Face Sheet, the resident discharged home on [DATE]. An admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 12/15/25, revealed R8 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 8, which indicated the resident had moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-02-25 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure their medication error rate was not greater than 5 percent (%). There were 2 errors out of 29 opportunities, which resulted in a medication error rate of 6.9% for 2 (Resident (R)9 and R11) of 3 residents observed for medication administration. Findings included:A facility policy titled, Administering Medications, revised 04/2019, indicated, 4. Medications are administered in accordance with prescriber orders, including any required time frame.1. A Resident Face Sheet indicated the facility admitted R9 on 12/01/25. According to the Resident Face Sheet, the resident had a medical history that included a diagnosis of allergic rhinitis.R9's Physician Order Report, for the timeframe 01/25/26 - 02/25/26, revealed an order dated 11/18/25, for Flonase allergy relief 50 micrograms (mcg) per actuation (spray), administer two sprays to each nostril once a day.During medication administration observation on 02/23/2026 at 3:34 PM, Registered Nurse (RN)1 prepared and administered R9's…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-03-20 · 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
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to prevent potential accidents related to over the counter (OTC) medication's being at bedside for Resident (R)1, for one of one resident reviewed for accidents hazards. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Medication Administration Record copyrighted 2001, revealed, Medications are administered in a safe and timely manner, and as prescribed . Policy Interpretation and Implementation . 24. Topical medications used in treatments are recorded on the resident's treatment record (TAR) . 27. Residents may self-administer their own medications only if the attending physician, in conjunction with the interdisciplinary care planning team, has determined that they have the decision-making capacity to do so safety. Review of the facility's policy titled, Self-Administration of Medications version 09/2020, revealed, The facility shall permit residents who are competent and physically able to self-administer their medications if the following conditions are met: 1. Self-administration of medications by…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-03-20 · 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
Based on review of facility policy, observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure that all drugs and biologicals used in the facility were labeled in accordance to professional standards including expiration dates, for 1 of 1 treatment cart. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Medication Storage (SC SNF Pharmacy Policy and Procedure Manual), version 09/2020, did not reveal information on professional standards of on labeling, expiration dates, or discarding expired medications. During an observation on 03/18/25 at 12:46 PM, the treatment cart revealed the following: One Hydrofera Blue 10.2cm x 10.2 cm 4x4 Sterile, Ref# HB4414, Lot # 190328150, exp 02/01/2024. Aloe cream, LOT #313, Manufacturer Rugby Laboratories, expired 11/24. Two sterile suture removal kits, Manufacturer Dynamex Corporation, Lot #51842, expired 01/04/2025. Thirty sterile wood shaft cotton tipped applicators, Ref #76800, Manufacturer ProAdvantage by NDC, Lot #91504, expired 02/2024. The expired medications was verified and removed by Registered Nurse (RN)1. During an interview 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 · D2025-03-20 · tag F0908 — failed to keep essential equipment working — isolatedKeep all essential equipment working safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of facility policy, observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure an excessive amount of lint was removed from 2 of 2 clothes dryers. The lint was noted above and behind the lint basket and on the 3 inside walls of the clothes dryers. Findings include: Review of a facility document titled, Laundry Assistant/ Equipment and Supply Functions states, . clean the lint screen for each commercial dryer at a minimum of each shift and when necessary. During an observation on 03/19/25 at 12:13 PM, of two dryers revealed the lint baskets and three walls below the dryers contained an excessive amount of lint. During an observation on 03/19/25 at 12:20 PM, the signage posted on 1 of 2 dryers stated, Clean Lint Filters, Remove Lint from the Dryer Lint Screens Every Time You Use the Dryer. This Helps Prevent A Fire, But It Also Helps Laundry To Dry Faster. During an interview and observation on 03/19/25 at 12:33 PM, the Environmental Services Supervisor (ESS) confirmed the excessive amount of lint. The ESS stated that the laundry staff removes the lint from the lint…
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 · D2023-05-18 · tag F0554 — isolatedAllow residents to self-administer drugs if determined clinically appropriate.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility's policy review, the facility failed to ensure one resident (Resident (R)5) of nine sampled residents, did not self-administer her inhalant nebulizer medication without an assessment and physician's order to self-administration the medication. The facility's deficient practice increased R5's risk for adverse medication reactions. Findings include: Review of facility policy titled Self-Administration of Medication, 12/12, revealed .Residents in our facility who wish to self-administer their medications may do so, if it is determined that they are capable of doing so .As a part of their overall evaluation, the staff and practitioner will assess each resident's mental and physical abilities, to determine whether a resident is capable of self-administering medications .The staff and practitioner will document their findings and the choices of residents who are potentially capable of self-administering medications . Review of the facility's policy titled Administering Medications, 12/12, revealed .Medications shall be…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-05-18 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, review of records, and review of facility policies, the facility failed to ensure: 1. a physician's order was obtained for blood sugar fingersticks for two residents ((R)4 and R2); and 2. R4's insulin physician's orders were correct on the Medication Administration Record (MAR) out of five residents sampled for unnecessary medications. Findings include: Review of facility's policy titled Insulin Administration, dated 09/14 and provided by the Administrator, revealed .To provide guidelines for the safe administration of insulin to residents with diabetes .The type of insulin, dosage requirements . Must be verified before administration, to assure that it corresponds with the order on the medication sheet and the physician's order .The nurse shall notify the Director of Nursing Services and Attending Physician of any discrepancies, before giving the insulin .Documentation .The resident's blood glucose result, as ordered . Review of facility's policy titled Obtaining a Fingerstick Glucose Level, dated 10/11 and provided by the Administrator, revealed…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · C2023-05-18 · tag F0732 — widespreadPost nurse staffing information every day.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, records and facility policy review, the facility failed to post daily nurse staffing with facility name, date, census, and the total numbers/actual hours worked per shift for licensed and unlicensed staff responsible for resident's care in a prominent location (accessible to residents and visitors). The facility's failure increased the risk that residents and visitors would not know if there were sufficient staff for each shift to care for the residents. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Posting Direct Care Daily Staffing Numbers, dated 08/2022 and provided by the Director of Nursing (DON), revealed .Our facility will post on a daily basis for each shift nurse staffing data, including the number of nursing personnel responsible for providing direct care to residents .Within two (2) hours of the beginning of each shift, the number or licensed nurses (RN [Registered Nurse]s, LPN [Licensed Practical Nurse]s, and LVN[Licensed Vocational Nurse]s) and the number of unlicensed nursing personnel (CNA [Certified Nursing Assistant]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.
- 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
$16,997 in federal fines across 2 penalties.
- $8,498 — penalty dated 2024-01-12
- $8,499 — penalty dated 2024-01-12
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| REDMON, GLENDA | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | since 11/22/2016 |
| EMERSON, LINDA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2019 |
| HAYES, ROBERT | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2019 |
| HECKARD, RICHARD | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2019 |
| HUITT, SIGMON | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2010 |
| LITTLE, JOHN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2017 |
| RICHTER, DONNA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2019 |
| RINEHART, JOHN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2019 |
| ROCQUEMORE, TANYA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 07/31/2018 |
| BRIGHT, JAMES | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2019 |
| COPE, JACOB | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2017 |
| THOMASON, JAMES | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 10/03/2016 |
| JOHNSON, KEVIN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 02/13/2017 |
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.
A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in SC
CMS lists this home as Medicare-certified only — it is not Medicaid-certified, so it generally cannot accept Medicaid as payment for a long-term stay. That makes it one of roughly 545 homes nationally where a Medicaid-funded placement is not an option. If you expect to rely on Medicaid, ask the home directly before you tour, and see the South Carolina Medicaid page for homes that do.
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 425291. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-02-25, 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.