Magnolia Manor - Spartanburg
375 Serpentine Drive, Spartanburg, SC 29303 · For profit - Corporation · 95 certified beds · (864) 585-0218 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
- the CMS record shows $12,054 in federal fines (most recent 2024-06-14)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (56%) runs well above the national median (45%)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 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 improved from 1 to 3 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 | 6.1% | 11.9% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 7.2% | 6.3% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.2% | 0.6% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.3% | 1.3% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.4% | 3.1% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 2.5% | 3.2% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 9.7% | 12.7% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 21.3% | 21.0% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 76.5% | 90.6% | 95.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.5% | 5.1% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 20.4% | 16.7% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 24.9% | 15.3% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 3.6% | 1.5% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 85.6% | 78.0% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 12.8% | 24.3% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 10.0% | 13.9% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.97 | 2.04 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.78 | 1.84 | 1.80 | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
38.9% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 55 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 71.4% 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 42 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 0.27 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 40% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 5% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. 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 | 38.9%CMS range 28.5–51.9 | 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 | 13.1%CMS range 9.2–17.7 | 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 | 71.4% | 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 | 66.7% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 64.3% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 88.9% | 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 | 3.3% | 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 | 4.9% | 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 | 7.5%CMS range 3.8–12.9 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.10 | 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 95 beds and averages 91.9 residents a day — about 97% occupied, or roughly 3 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. 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 3.13 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.37 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.90 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 2.66 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.32 on weekdays — 20% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.41 to 0.28 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 56% is well above the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
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 fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. 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.
13 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2024-06-14 · tag F0624 — isolatedPrepare residents for a safe transfer or discharge from the nursing home.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on a review of the facility policy, record reviews, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident had a safe and orderly discharge from the facility, for 1 of 1 resident. Specifically, Resident (R)60 was transported and discharged from the facility on 06/12/24 to the [NAME] Housing Authority, 62 miles from the facility. The [NAME] Housing Authority was not able to receive R60 due to financial issues. Furthermore, the facility failed to obtain a physician order for the discharge. On 06/13/24 at 7:19 PM, the Administrator and the Director of Nursing (DON) were notified that the failure to ensure a resident had a safe and orderly discharge from the facility constituted Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) at F624. On 06/13/24 at 7:30 PM, the survey team provided the Administrator with a copy of the CMS Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) Template and informed the facility IJ existed as of 06/12/24. The IJ was related to 42 CFR 483.15 - Admission, Transfer, and Discharge. On 06/14/24 at 8:57 AM, the facility provided an…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-03-04 · 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 review of facility policy, record review and interview, the facility failed to notify the provider of a dehisced wound for 2 days, which caused Resident (R)8 to return to the hospital, for 1 of 1 residents reviewed. Findings include: Review of the facility policy dated 06/01/15, titled, Surgical Incisions documents, The clinician will follow specific physicians orders for treatment of these wounds. Obtain clarification orders if the initial orders are not specific. These wounds are usually covered with dry dressings. Based on review of facility policy, record review and interview, the facility failed to notify the provider of a dehisced wound for 2 days, which caused Resident (R)8 to return to the hospital, for 1 of 1 resident reviewed. Findings include: Review of the facility policy dated 06/01/15, titled, Surgical Incisions documents, The clinician will follow specific physician's orders for treatment of these wounds. Obtain clarification orders if the initial orders are not specific. These wounds are…
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 before2025-03-04 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of the facility policy, observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure ordered fall devices were in place for 1 Resident (R)11, reviewed for accidents. Findings include Review of the facility policy titled, Fall Management with a revision date of May 5, 2023 revealed under the policy, The facility will identify each resident who is at risk for falls and will plan care and implement interventions to manage falls. The facility provides assistive devices based onindividual resident needsto facilitate mobility and prevent falls. Record review of R11's facesheet revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that include but are not limited to; displaced intertrochanteric fracture of right femur, subsequent encounter for closed fracture with routine healing and hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting left non-dominant side. Record review of R11's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assesment Reference Date (ARD) of 12/02/24…
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 · D2024-11-26 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of facility policy, observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to report an allegation of physical abuse, involving Resident (R)2, within the required timeframe, for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for abuse. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation, or Mistreatment revised on 10/23/19, documents, The facility's Leadership prohibits neglect, mental, physical, and or verbal abuse . and ensures that alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment . are reported immediately. Review of R2's Face Sheet revealed R2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including but not limited to: chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, unspecified depression and cerebrovascular accident. Review of R2's Minimum Data Set (MDS) with Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 09/02/24, revealed R2 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12 out of 15, indicating R2 had…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-06-14 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a nurse followed physician orders and manufacturer's guidelines for administering an inhaled corticosteroid for 1 out of 29 opportunities of medication administration. Findings include: Review of a facility policy titled, Nursing Policies and Procedures, dated 05/05/2023, revealed, 6. The authorized staff member reads the label on the medication three times. A. Before removing the medication from the drawer, before dispensing the medication, and after dispensing the medication. 13. The authorized staff member administers medications according to accepted standards of practice and in compliance with regulatory requirements. Review of the GlaxoSmithKline instructions for use of Trelegy Ellipta, with a revised date of December 2022, revealed under Step 6, Rinse your mouth with water after you have used the inhaler and spit the water out. Do not swallow the water. Review of an admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident (R)87 on 06/04/24 with diagnoses including but…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-06-14 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, interviews, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to follow physician orders for oxygen administration for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for respiratory care, Resident (R)41. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Respiratory Policy & Procedures dated 02/12/2024 revealed, Subject: Oxygen Therapy-Oxygen administration helps relieve hypoxemia and maintain adequate oxygenation of tissues and vital organs. Oxygen administration increases blood oxygen content so that the heart doesn't have to pump as much blood per minute to meet tissue demands. Indications: Hypoxemia, Heart failure . Procedures: A. Verify the provider's order for the oxygen therapy . Review of R41's Face Sheet revealed R41 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including but not limited to: acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, chronic cough, nasal congestion, chronic systolic (congestive) heart failure, obesity, cardiomyopathy, essential (primary) hypertension,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-06-14 · 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 observation, interviews, record review, and review of the facility's Dialysis Contract, the facility failed to ensure communication with the dialysis center for 1 of 1 resident (Resident (R)75) reviewed for dialysis. Findings include: Review of the facility's Dialysis Contract titled, Long Term Care Facility Dialysis Services Agreement, dated October 25, 2012, states under section 2B, Care facility agrees to furnish at the time of referral and request for acceptance of any Resident as a patient of Dialysis Center all appropriate medical and administrative information relating to resident condition, including without limitation the following. Resident's name, address, date of birth , and Social Security Number. Name, address, and telephone number of Resident's next of kin. Appropriate Payor information for Resident. Appropriate medical records of Resident, including the history of Resident's renal illness and record of laboratory and x-ray findings. Statement of current treatment including medications.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-06-14 · tag F0726 — failed to have competent, trained nursing staff — isolatedEnsure that nurses and nurse aides have the appropriate competencies to care for every resident in a way that maximizes each resident's well being.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure Certified Nursing Assistants (CNA)s and Licensed Practical Nurses (LPN)s were provided needed competency training for colostomy care and maintenance. Specifically, a CNA provided skilled nursing care to Resident (R)23's colostomy wafer that was beyond their scope of practice, for 1 of 2 residents observed for colostomy care. This failure had the potential to cause harm to R23's stoma. Findings include: Review of the Nurse Aide Candidate Skill Checklist also known as Skills Listing South Carolina Nurse Aide Candidate Handbook dated 07/01/23 reveals no competency skills or training for stoma assessment, care, and/or colostomy wafer changes. Review of R23's Face Sheet revealed R23 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including but not limited to: Schizophrenia, urinary incontinence, psychotic disorder with delusions, hallucinations, Bell's Palsy, colostomy, and intellectual disabilities. Review of R23's Annual…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-06-14 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, interviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure that staff used proper Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) while providing colostomy care to 1 of 8 residents, Resident (R)17. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Transmission Based/Standard Precautions, and Enhanced Barrier Precautions, revised on May 15, 2023 stated, Policy: 2. Healthcare worker (HCW) will implement Universal/Standard Precautions whenever there is the occupational exposure to blood and body fluids, 4. The type of PPE (personal protective equipment) and precautions implemented depends on the potential for exposure, route of transmission, and the infectious organism/pathogen, 5. Health care workers will implement enhanced barrier precautions according to policy with additional measures to protect residents and staff from Multidrug-resistant Organisms (MDROs) MDROs refers to microorganisms predominantly bacteria that are resistant to one or more classes 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 · D2024-04-09 · 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 the facility policy, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to notify the on-call provider regarding a significant change in a resident's (R)1 condition. Specifically, critical lab blood sugar readings were not communicated timely. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Physician and Other Communication/Change in Condition dated [DATE], revealed, To improve communication between physicians and nursing staff to promote optimal patient/resident care, provide nursing staff with guidelines for making decisions regarding appropriate and timely notification of medical staff regarding changes in patient/resident's condition, and provide guidance for the notification of patient's/residents and their responsible party regarding changes in condition. Section 3 of the policy states, Notify the physician of the change in medical condition. The nurse will document all assessments and changes in the patient's/resident's condition in the medical record. Changes and new approaches…
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 before2023-08-23 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of the facility policy, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff implemented interventions identified to aid in the prevention of harm with a fall for 1 (Resident (R)1) of 2 sampled residents reviewed for falls. Findings Include: Review of facility policy titled, Fall Management with a revised date of 05/05/23, revealed the facility will identify each patient/resident who is at risk for falls and will plan care and implement interventions to manage falls. Review of R1's face sheet revealed R1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including but not limited to unsteadiness on feet, muscle weakness, difficulty in walking, unspecified dementia, cognitive communication deficit and attention and concentration deficit. Review of R1's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 05/01/23, revealed R1's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score was incomplete. It was recorded that R1 was dependent on the staff for all areas 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 · Ecited before2022-03-18 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, record review, policy review, and review of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidance, the facility failed to ensure 1. all staff wore the required Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) of an N95 mask, eye protection, gown, and gloves prior to entering the rooms of three of three residents (Resident (R) 133, R135, and R136) under quarantine as new admissions who were not up to date with all recommended COVID-19 vaccine doses (including booster doses, if eligible). Additionally, the facility failed to ensure a staff member with a vaccination exemption wore appropriate PPE, while in the facility. This placed all residents of the facility at an increased risk for the transmission of COVID-19. Findings include: Review of CDC guidance, Interim Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations for Healthcare Personnel During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic, update 02/02/22, revealed Place a patient with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in a…
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 before2022-03-18 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, record reviews, and policy review, the facility failed to assess for safe smoking for two of two residents (Residents (R) 133 and R49) reviewed for smoking in a total sample of 19 residents. This failure increases the risk of injury to residents who may have unassessed safety risk factors. Findings include: Review of the admission Packet Smoking Policy, revised 02/2022, revealed Unless otherwise noted in a separate policy, this facility is a smoke-free environment and there are NO designated smoking areas inside the building or on its premises for its residents. Smoking in any areas of the facility or on its premises, including but not limited to resident bedrooms, showers, bathrooms, activity areas, hallways or other common areas, parking lots, entrances/exits, is strictly prohibited, and will not be tolerated. All residents are prohibited from keeping any type of smoking materials (lighter, matches, cigarettes, etc) in their rooms or on their person. Violations of this policy…
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
$12,054 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $12,054 — penalty dated 2024-06-14
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.
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 | 3 of 5 | 2.4 | +0.6 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 2.2 | -0.2 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 3.4 | +0.6 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| THI OF SOUTH CAROLINA, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 08/30/2003 |
| FORMAN, MURRAY | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 03/28/2006 |
| SHERBERT, ANGELA | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 06/24/2019 |
| QUINN, KIMBERLY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 07/06/2006 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 6 rows in the source record cover these 4 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $461K 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 425091. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-05-20, 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.