Lake City Scranton Healthcare Center
1940 Boyd Road, Scranton, SC 29591 · For profit - Corporation · 88 certified beds · (843) 389-9201 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (34% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited May 2024
- 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 (21) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 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 | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 2 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 1 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 | 11.2% | 11.9% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 12.7% | 6.3% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.5% | 0.6% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 2.1% | 1.3% | 2.0% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 33.8% | 3.1% | 6.5% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 6.2% | 3.2% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 8.4% | 12.7% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 23.7% | 21.0% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 91.4% | 90.6% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.2% | 5.1% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 11.7% | 16.7% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 16.1% | 15.3% | 17.1% | typical |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.7% | 1.5% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 54.4% | 78.0% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 27.4% | 24.3% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 11.1% | 13.9% | 12.0% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.93 | 2.04 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.96 | 1.84 | 1.80 | typical |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
49.1% 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 34 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 52.5% 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 40 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 0.21 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 24% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 22% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 49.1%CMS range 32.8–71.4 | 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 | 12.5%CMS range 7.6–15.6 | 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 | 52.5% | 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 | 52.5% | 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 | 57.5% | 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 | 98.7% | 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 | 94.6% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 2.7% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.7%CMS range 4.2–13.1 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.32 | 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 88 beds and averages 82.4 residents a day — about 94% occupied, or roughly 6 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 3.18 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.34 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.82 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 2.75 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.36 on weekdays — 18% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.40 to 0.21 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 34% 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.
21 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 11 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · E2025-07-30 · tag F0565 — failed to support the resident council — patternHonor 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 interview, record review, and facility policy the facility failed to act promptly to resolve resident grievances from resident groups/family members. Grievances included but were not limited to quality of care and quality of life concerns with residents in the facility. 10 of 10 interviewed during the state agency resident council meeting; specified unresolved grievances include 2 of 10 residents.Findings include:Review of the facility policy titled, Social Services Policies and Procedures Complaints/Grievances Process last revised 11/06/23, revealed The Facility's Leadership will support the patients/residents right to voice complaints/grievances to the facility or other agencies/entities that hear grievances regarding concerns they have about services and treatment received including but not limited to treatment, care, advance care directives, management of funds, behaviors of other patients/residents, violations of resident rights, behavior of staff, environmental issues. The facility's leadership…
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 · Ecited before2025-07-30 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — patternProvide 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 the facility policy, observations, record reviews, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure Resident 1 (R1) and R26, residents without the capacity to complete his/hers activities of daily living, received the care and services needed for bathing and grooming for 2 of 3 reviewed for activities of daily living.Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Activities of Daily Living, Optimal Function, states, Activities of daily living (ADL's), refer to tasks related to personal care including, grooming, dressing, oral hygiene, transfer, bed mobility, eating, bathing and communication system. The Policy, states, The facility provides care and services to ensure that a resident's abilities in activities of daily living do not diminish unless circumstances of the individual's clinical condition demonstrate that such diminution was unavoidable. The facility provides necessary care to all residents that are unable to carry out activities of daily living on their own to ensure they maintain…
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 before2025-07-30 · 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 review of the facility policy, observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure Resident (R)74 had a right to a dignified existence in the presence of other residents/peers during a resident council meeting, 1 of 10 reviewed for dignity.Findings include:Review of the facility policy titled, Social Services Policies and Procedures: Patient/Resident Rights, last revised 06/09/23 revealed, The facility employs measures to ensure patient and resident personal dignity, well-being, and self-determination are maintained and will educate patients and residents regarding their rights and responsibilities. The Facility has established the Patient/Resident [NAME] of Rights and responsibilities in accordance with state and federal regulations. The Facility will communicate the Patient/Resident [NAME] of Rights and Responsibilities to the patient and residents in a language or means of communication that ensures patient and resident understanding. The [NAME] of Rights is recognized 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 · D2025-07-30 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure that appropriate hand hygiene was implemented in 1 of 1 kitchen observed. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure an effective water management program was in place to safeguard and reduce the potential growth and spread of Legionella and other pathogens in the facility water systems. The facility further failed to ensure the proper PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) was used to reposition Resident (R)42, prior to receiving wound care, for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for pressure ulcers.Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, “Sanitation and Food Safety In Food and Nutrition Services,” last reviewed 06/20/23, revealed “Infection Control and sanitation practices are followed to minimize the risk of contamination of food and prevent food borne illness.” Review of the facility policy titled, “Hand Hygiene/Handwashing,” last revised on 05/15/23, revealed, “Method: Hand Hygiene technique .Rinse hands with water and dry thoroughly with a disposable towel.” An observation 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 · D2024-05-23 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from abuse for two of four residents (Resident (R) 66 and R11) reviewed for abuse and neglect of 29 sampled residents. This had the potential to affect resident safety at the facility. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation, or Mistreatment, dated 10/01/20, documented The facility's leadership prohibits neglect, mental, physical, and/or verbal abuse . Abuse is the willful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or punishment with resulting physical harm, pain, or mental anguish .Willful, as used in this definition of abuse, means the individual must have acted deliberately, not that the individual must have intended to inflict injury or harm. 1.a. Review of R66's undated Face Sheet located in the electronic medical record (EMR), under the Face Sheet tab, indicated R66 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-05-23 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to conduct a thorough investigation for an alleged incident of resident-to-resident altercation for two of four residents reviewed out of 29 sampled residents (Resident (R) 187 and R11). This had the potential to affect resident safety at the facility. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation, or Mistreatment, dated 10/01/20, revealed Determine the type of abuse and where/ when incident occurred. Interview individuals having firsthand knowledge of the incident and write summaries of the interviews. NOTE: Employees/witnesses are not to write out statements. Employees/witnesses will be interviewed by designated facility staff and the interviewer will record all witness accounts in a document, written, dated, and signed by the interviewer. Social Service will provide support services to the resident/patient and implement an interdisciplinary care plan. Depending on the incident, other residents in…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-05-23 · 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 observations, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents who were dependent on staff for activities of daily living (ADL) assistance received services for one of one resident (Resident (R) 33) reviewed for fingernail care in a total sample of 29 residents. This failure placed residents at risk for diminished self-worth, self-esteem, feelings of embarrassment, and/or medical issues. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Activities of Daily Living (ADL), revised on 05/05/23, documented .The facility provides necessary care to all residents that are unable to carry out activities of daily living on their own to ensure they maintain proper nutrition, grooming, and hygiene . Review of the undated Face Sheet located in the electronic medical record (EMR) under the Resident tab, documented R33 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses that included Alzheimer's disease and diabetes mellitus. Review of the Care Plan in the EMR…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-05-23 · 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, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the oxygen units were cleaned and sanitary for three of three residents (Resident (R) 68, R69, and R42) reviewed for respiratory care of 29 sampled residents. This failed practice has the potential to cause respiratory and other infections for residents. Findings include: 1. Review of R68's undated Face Sheet located in the electronic medical record (EMR) under the Face Sheet tab, documented R68 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of R68's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment located in the EMR under the MDS tab with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 03/11/24, revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14 out of 15, indicating R68 had intact cognition and oxygen usage. Review of the Physician Orders located in the EMR under the Orders tab and dated 03/13/24, revealed an order for Oxygen at 2 liters per minute via nasal cannula as needed (prn) for shortness of breath (SOB). Observations…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2022-03-24 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — widespreadEnsure 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 observations, record reviews, interviews, pharmacy labeling, manufacturer labeling, manufacturer package inserts and facility policy and procedures, the facility failed to ensure medications were properly stored and/or secured in 4 of 4 medication carts, 1 of 2 treatment carts, and 1 of 2 medication rooms. The facility further failed to ensure a medication cart on Palmetto Hall 2 was locked and medications that were in medication cups and ready to administer were secured before leaving the medication cart and going into resident rooms during one random observation. Findings include: On 3/21/22 at approximately 3:11 PM, inspection of the Palmetto Treatment Cart revealed that the cart was unlocked, unattended with wandering residents in the area and one opened and approximately 1/3 empty bottle of Sterile Water, USP (United States Pharmacopoeia) 1,000 ml (milliliter) by Medline located in bottom drawer. The bottle was labeled by Medline: No antimicrobial or other substances added. and Contents sterile…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2022-03-24 · tag F0806 — failed to honor food preferences — widespreadEnsure 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
Based on observation, interview, review of facility policy and procedure, and dietary contract the facility failed to ensure 80 of 81 residents were offered options of similar nutritive value to residents who choose not to eat food that is initially served or who request a different meal choice. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure alternative meals were not sandwiches and soups offered on a daily basis if a meal is refused. Findings include: Review of facility policy titled Menus revised date 08/01/20 revealed Menus will be planned to meet the nutritional needs and preferences of the patients or residents and are in accordance with the recommended dietary allowances of the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences 8. Substitutions offer similar nutritive value to the food being replaced. 9. Provide an alternate entree, vegetable and starch at lunch and dinner to allow choice and meet the needs of patients or residents who refuse the original menu. If using a leftover as the alternate, it is not served the day immediately after it…
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 11 citations
- Potential for harm · F2022-03-24 · 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 review of facility policy and procedure the facility failed to ensure 1 of 1 three door refrigerator and 2 of 2 freezer temperatures were checked twice a day, a temperature log was maintained for 1 of 1 white stand alone freezer, and expired supplements were removed from the kitchen area. Specifically, the facility failed to check the temperature log sheets for the refrigerators and freezers twice a day, maintain a temperature log sheet for a freezer, and discard expired supplements. Findings include: Review of facility policy titled Food Safety In Receiving And Storage revised date 08/01/20 revealed .3. Check and record refrigerator temperatures at least 2 times per day (Refer to Refrigerator/Freezer Temperature Log). Temperatures not in the appropriate range are reported to the Food and Nutrition Director or maintenance. 4. Maintain the ambient temperature of refrigerators at 34 to 38 degrees F (Fahrenheit) or per state regulations. Maintain the ambient temperature of freezers so that foods are solidly frozen or per state regulations. 1. Review…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2022-03-24 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — widespreadDispose of garbage and refuse properly.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure proper dispose of refuse for 1 of 2 grease collection sites. Specifically, the facility failed to properly dispose of used fryer kitchen grease post accumulation and maintain a clean area around the collection site. Findings include: A facility policy and procedure was requested with none provided prior to exit. A copy of the last grease disposal pick up by the local company was requested with none provided prior to exit. An observation on 03/22/22 at 09:45 AM revealed a 25 (twenty-five) gallon black metal drum cans sitting next to the wall of the facility. Spilled black grease consistency substance running on the ground around the can, on top of the can and black stains on the wall of the facility behind the can. The following items were on the ground below the black metal drum with grease: a long black hose, the base of something, a small motor of some type, and a broken broom handle. In an interview on 03/22/22 at 9:47 AM, the Clinical Dietary Manager (CDM) stated, We just drain the fryer and maintenance gets rid…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2022-03-24 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — patternSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, record review and review of facility policy and procedure the facility failed to ensure Activities of Daily Living (ADL) care was documented for 3 of 3 Residents (R)1, 14, and 56). Specifically, the facility failed to ensure daily ADL care for bathing was documented. Findings include: Review of facility policy titled Activities of Daily Living revised date 1/1/20 revealed The restorative nursing staff will assist patients/residents who demonstrate a decreased ability in performing or participating in bathing, dressing and hygiene/grooming activities with interventions to restore, maintain or improve their participation activities of daily living (ADL) .12. ADL Self-Performance. Code for resident's performance over all shifts-not including setup. If the ADL activity occurred 3 (three) or more times at various levels of assistance, code the most dependent-except for total dependence, which requires full staff performance every time . 1. Review of R1's facility Electronic Medical Record (EMR)…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2022-03-24 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to maintain the resident's dignity by ensuring (Resident (R) 24's) catheter bag was covered for one of one sampled residents. Specifically, R24's catheter bag was uncovered on multiple observations throughout the survey (March 21-24, 2022). This failure had the potential to affect the residents right for privacy. Findings include: A review of the facility's policy titled Nursing Policies and Procedures with a revision date of 07/01/16 includes the following: Subject: Catheter / urinary catheter, use of Purpose: All residents with an indwelling urinary catheter will be assessed for a clinical condition that demonstrates the necessity of placement. An indwelling catheter is not used unless there is a valid medical justification for catheterization and the catheter is discontinued as soon as clinically warranted. A catheter that is used for appropriate indications and in a dignified manner may enhance an…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-03-24 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, record reviews and interviews the facility failed to assure that a decision-making capacity form and/or power of attorney was recorded for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for advanced directives (Resident (R) 29). This failure had the potential to affect the resident's right to make healthcare decisions Findings include: On 3/23/22 at approximately 8:50 AM, a review of the medical record for R29 revealed admission to the facility on 9/22/21 with diagnoses including, but not limited to chronic pulmonary disease. Further review revealed R29 was DNR (Do Not Resuscitate), but failed to find a decision-making capacity form signed by two physicians or a copy of a power of attorney initiated by R29. On 3/23/22 at approximately 9:12 AM, a review of the Care Plan for R29 revealed Reviewed/Revised 12/28/21 at 3:11 PM by RN (Registered Nurse)1-R29 is a Full Code and Reviewed/Revised 3/18/22 at 12:53 PM revealed R29 has a DNR code status by SS (Social Services) 1. On 3/23/22 at approximately 9:22 AM, SS 1 stated there was no decision-making capacity form completed by two…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-03-24 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record reviews, interviews, and review of the facility policy titled, Fall Management, the facility failed to ensure interventions were put into place and the care plan for Resident #71 (R71) was revised with the interventions to reduce falls and or to prevent falls for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for falls with a major injury. No other residents in the facility obtained a fall with a major injury. Findings included: The facility admitted R71 with diagnoses including, but not limited to Abnormality of Gait and Mobility, Lack of Coordination, Difficulty Walking, Attention and Concentration Deficit, Muscle Wasting, Dementia and Chronic Pain. Review on 3/22/22 at 9:31 AM of the medical record for R71 revealed a fall on 3/7/22. At the time of the fall on 3/7/22, R71 had no signs or symptoms of injury. On 3/10/22, R71 was complaining of pain, it was reported to the physician and an X-ray of the left hip was obtained. The results revealed, an acute left subcapital femoral fracture with mild displacement. The bony structures appear osteopenic. There are scattered artherosclerotic…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-03-24 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, interviews, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to provide necessary care and services to prevent constipation and gastro-internal discomfort to resident (R)42 diagnosed with abnormalities of gait and mobility, chronic pain, muscle wasting, and atrophy and who is on scheduled opioid medications for one of one sampled resident reviewed for constipation. The facility's failure put the resident at risk for fecal impaction. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure Hospice services were rendered in accordance to the R1's hospice contract for one of one resident reviewed for Hospice. Findings include: A review of the facility titled Restorative Nursing Policies and Procedures dated 01/01/20. Subject: Bowel Retraining (Bowel Management Program) Policy: To provide the appropriate bowel management interventions based upon the individualized evaluation of patients/residents who may have chronic constipation/bowel dysfunction with intact sensation, sphincter…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-03-24 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, observations, interview, and review of the facility policy titled, Wound Care Policies and Procedures, Performing a Dressing Change, the facility failed to ensure a procedure was followed during wound care for Resident (R)50 to promote healing and to prevent infection for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for Pressure Ulcers. Specifically, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)10 failed to clean the scissors, that were removed from her pocket, to cut Calcium Alginate to be placed in a wound bed. Findings include: The facility admitted R50 with diagnoses including, but not limited to, Diabetes Type II, Severe Protein Calorie Malnutrition, and a Stage III Pressure Ulcer of the Sacrum. Review of the medical record on 3/24/22 at 9:20 AM revealed a physician's order for wound care that states, Cleanse the wound to gluteal cleft with Normal Saline or Wound Cleanser, apply Collagen (Puracol Ultra Powder) to the wound bed, then apply Calcium Alginate over Collagen, then cover with a dry dressing daily and as needed. An observation on 3/24/22 at 9:25 AM of wound care for R50 was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-03-24 · 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 record reviews, interviews and the policy title, Fall Management, the facility failed to ensure that interventions were in place to prevent or decrease falls for Resident (R) 71 for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for falls with a major injury. No other residents in the facility obtained a fall with a major injury Fndings include: The facility admitted R71 with diagnoses including, but not limited to Abnormality of Gait and Mobility, Lack of Coordination, Difficulty Walking, Attention and Concentration Deficit, Muscle Wasting, Dementia and Chronic Pain. Review on 3/22/22 at 9:31 AM of the medical record for R71 revealed a fall on 3/7/22. At the time of the fall on 3/7/22, R71 had no signs or symptoms of injury. On 3/10/22, R71 was complaining of pain, it was reported to the physician and an X-ray of the left hip was obtained. The results revealed, an acute left subcapital femoral fracture with mild displacement. The bony structures appear osteopenic. There are scattered artherosclerotic calcifications. R71 was transported to the hospital and underwent surgery to fix the fractured…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-03-24 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, record review, and review of facility contract, the facility failed to ensure ongoing communication and collaboration with the dialysis facility regarding dialysis care and services for one Resident (R) 56 of 1 resident reviewed for dialysis. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure communication sheets between the facility and the dialysis facility were acquired, reviewed, and maintained in R56's medical chart. Findings include: Review of facility policy titled Dialysis-Hemodialysis revised date 07/01/16 revealed .2. The facility staff will participate in ongoing communication with the dialysis center by using the Dialysis Communication Form which is filed in the resident's medical record . Review of dialysis contract dated 03/23/22 revealed .3. Designated Resident Information. Facility shall ensure that all appropriate medical, social, administrative, and other information accompany all Designated Resident at the time of transfer to Center. This information, shall include, but is not…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-03-24 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, review of maintenance logs, and review of the facility policy titled, Maintenance/Housekeeping Policies and Procedures, Equipment and Utilities Management Program, for clothes dryers, the facility failed to ensure an excessive amount of lint was removed from over the wiring and on all three sides of the lint compartment in 3 of 3 clothes dryers. Findings include: An observation on 3/24/22 at 8:00 AM revealed 3 of 3 clothes dryers with excessive lint on the wiring over the lint baskets, and on the 3 upper sides inside the dryers over the lint baskets. An interview on 3/24/22 at 8:05 AM with the Housekeeping Supervisor confirmed the findings. The Housekeeping Supervisor stated that the Maintenance Department was responsible for removing the lint from the wiring and from the upper 3 sides of the clothes dryers. All the laundry workers cleaned were the floors of the dryers and the actual lint baskets. Review on 3/24/22 at 9:30 AM of the facility policy titled,…
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 FUNDAMENTAL HEALTHCARE — 66 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 | 4 of 5 | 2.4 | +1.6 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 2.5 | +1.5 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 2.2 | -0.2 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 3.4 | -0.4 vs chain |
The other 65 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.4★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 65; 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 HEALTH CARE LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 08/22/2006 |
| PRINCE, BENJAMIN | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 11/29/2021 |
| TABLER, KENNETH | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 08/15/2015 |
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.
About 75% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $710K 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 425149. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-07-30, 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.