Opus Post Acute Rehabilitation
300 Agape Drive, West Columbia, SC 29169 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 98 certified beds · (803) 739-5282 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 an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Dec 2025
- inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
- a high number of inspection citations overall (15) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $12,043 in federal fines (most recent 2024-12-16)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 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 fell from 4 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 | 13.0% | 11.9% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 9.1% | 6.3% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.4% | 0.6% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.7% | 1.3% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 3.2% | 3.1% | 6.5% | typical for the 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 | 1.7% | 3.2% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 10.5% | 12.7% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 20.1% | 21.0% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.7% | 90.6% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 7.4% | 5.1% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 17.2% | 16.7% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 6.2% | 15.3% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.9% | 1.5% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 83.2% | 78.0% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 25.8% | 24.3% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 11.5% | 13.9% | 12.0% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 3.08 | 2.04 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.63 | 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.
50.8% 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 132 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 21.7% 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 46 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 0.58 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 87% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 7% 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 | 50.8%CMS range 41.6–61.2 | 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 | 9.9%CMS range 7.6–14.1 | 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 | 21.7% | 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 | 39.1% | 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 | 34.8% | 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 | 72.6% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 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 | 2.7% | 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 | 1.4% | 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 | 8.0%CMS range 4.8–12.8 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.09 | 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 98 beds and averages 84.3 residents a day — about 86% occupied, or roughly 14 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 3.78 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.51 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.25 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.18 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.02 on weekdays — 21% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.60 to 0.29 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 50% is about the same as 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 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.
15 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2024-12-16 · 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 observations, interviews, record review and review of facility policy, (1) the facility failed to ensure that proper infection control measures were taken regarding aerosol drainage bags for Resident (R)62 and R68, for 2 of 5 residents reviewed. Furthermore, (2) the facility failed to properly clean and disinfect blood glucose metered device, that was shared with multiple residents, R388, R45, and R340, for 3 of 5 residents revealed. On 11/25/24 at 8:19 AM, the State Agency (SA) determined that the facility's non-compliance with one or more federal health, safety, and/or quality regulations has caused or was likely to cause serious injury, serious harm, serious impairment, or death. On 12/16/24, the facility was notified that the failure to properly clean and disinfect a multi-use glucometer, between residents constituted Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) at F880. On 12/16/24 at 5:48 PM, the survey team provided the Director of Nursing (DON) with a copy of the CMS IJ Template, informing the facility IJ existed as…
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 · D2025-12-04 · 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 observation, record review, interview, and review of facility policy, the facility neglected the needs of Resident (R)1 by failing to ensure the resident had access to their call light, after a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) removed the call light from the resident's reach for 1 of 1 resident reviewed.Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Prevention of and Prohibition Against Abuse, with a revision date of 12/2023, indicated the facility will provide oversight and monitoring to ensure that its staff, who are agents of the facility, deliver care and services in a way that promotes and respects the rights of the residents to be free from abuse. Review of R1's Face Sheet revealed R1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including, but not limited to, muscle weakness, cognitive communication deficit, hypertension, lack of coordination, need for assistance with personal care, and abnormalities of gait and mobility. Review of R1's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-04-16 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — patternHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to promote a homelike dining experience. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure staff did not stand to assist residents with the meals for one (1) of one (1) dependent resident (Resident (R)8). Additionally, the facility failed to remove the plated food, eating utensils, and drinks from the serving tray onto the table for three (3) of three (3) residents that dined communally (R1, R2, and R9). Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Resident Rights revised on 10/2015 revealed, . It is the policy of this facility that all residents be treated with kindness, dignity and respect. During a dining observation and interview on 04/15/25 at 12:20 PM, R1, R2, and R9 dined communally in the main dining room, where they all ate directly from the tray the meals were served on. R9 stated, They don't move the tray. During an interview on 04/16/25 at 3:17 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed the staff did 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 · E2025-04-16 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — patternReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of facility policy, observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure call lights were within reach for 6 of 13 residents reviewed. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure that a resident wheelchair arms were not in need of repair, for 1 of 1 resident. Findings include: Review of the facility's Call Light/Bell policy, revised on 05/2007, revealed, . It is the policy of this facility to provide the resident a means of communication with nursing staff . Place the call device within resident's reach before leaving room. Review of R1's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed R1 had an admission date of 08/29/24, with diagnoses including but not limited to: unspecified dementia, unspecified severity, with agitation, repeated fall, other sequelae of cerebral infraction, muscle weakness, restlessness and agitation. Review of R1's Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 12/02/24, revealed R1 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 5 out of 15, which indicates R1 suffered from severe cognitive impairment.…
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 · E2025-04-16 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — patternEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review and interviews the facility failed to ensure (1) the fall mat was in a position to prevent an accident for 1 of 5 residents reviewed, Resident (R)2. The facility also failed to ensure resident bathroom/shower room floors were not excessively slippery, for 4 of 5 residents reviewed, R3, R7, R10, R11. Additionally, (2) the facility failed to provide appropriate supervision for R1, resulting in R1 falling and suffering injuries, for 1 of 5 residents reviewed. Findings include: Review of the facility's Environment Conditions/Environmental Rounds, policy revised on 11/2019, revealed, . it is the policy of this facility that the facility must provide a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment for residents, staff and the public though monthly environmental rounds. (1) Review of R1's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed R1 had an admission date of 08/29/24, with diagnoses including but not limited to: unspecified dementia, unspecified severity, with agitation, repeated fall, other sequelae of cerebral infraction, muscle weakness,…
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 before2025-04-16 · 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
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to assist or offer residents hand hygiene before and/or after meals for 4 of 4 residents. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure bath basins were labeled and cover for 3 of 4 residents. Findings include: Review of R2's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed R2 had an admission date of 10/28/24, with diagnoses including but not limited to: unspecified sequelae of cerebral infarction, spinal stenosis, cervical region, and major depressive disorder, single episode. Review of R2's Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 11/03/24, revealed R2 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 8 out of 15, which indicates R2 was moderately cognitively impaired. Review of R3's EMR revealed R3 had an admission date of 06/15/23, with diagnoses including but not limited to: unspecified dementia, unspecified severity, without behavioral disturbance, psychotic disturbance, mood disturbance, and anxiety, type 2 diabetes mellitus with unspecified complications, major depressive disorder,…
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 · Fcited before2024-12-16 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interviews and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure foods was labeled, stored, and discarded according to the expiration date, in 1 of 1 main kitchen. This failure had the potential to cause foodborne illnesses. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Labeling and Dating of Foods dated 2020, documented All food items in the storeroom, refrigerator, and freezer need to be labeled and dated. Newly opened food items will need to be closed and labeled with an open date and used by the date that follows guidelines . (EXCEPTION: Milk is to be used by its stamped expiration date.) During an initial tour of the kitchen on 11/24/24 at 10:10 AM, the dry storage revealed the following: - 25 lb bag of brown rice with no open date and no label. - 40 oz bag of Seasoned Homestyle Croutons with no open date and no label. - 10 oz bag of Puff Marshmallow opened with no label. - 5 lb bag of Spaghetti noodles opened with no expiration. - ¼ bag of Macaroni Noodles with no…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-12-16 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interviews, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a comfortable and homelike environment was provided for 2 residents, (Resident (R)56, R12), of 10 sampled residents whose rooms were reviewed. Finding include: Review of a facility policy titled, Environmental Conditions/Environmental Rounds with a revised dated of 11/19, revealed, It is the policy of this facility that the facility must provide a safe, functional, sanitary and comfortable environment for residents, staff and the public . residents rooms must be designed and equipped for adequate nursing care, comfort and privacy of residents. Review of R56's, Face Sheet revealed R56 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including but not limited to: presence of chronic diastolic congestive heart failure, alcohol abuse, generalized anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, hypertension, unspecified psychosis, chronic kidney disease stage 3A, unsteadiness on feet, weakness and need for assistance with personal care. During an observation and interview on 11/27/24 at…
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 · D2024-12-16 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews, record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to provide services or care that are acceptable standards of practice. Specifically, the facility failed to obtain lab orders for a redraw, after an anticoagulant (Coumadin) adjustment for 1 (Resident (R)388's) of 1 resident reviewed for unnecessary medications. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Anticoagulation -Clinical Protocol last revised in November 2018, revealed, The physician will prescribe anticoagulation therapy (for example, low molecular weight heparin, warfarin, or other oral anticoagulant) appropriately, consistent with the recognized guidelines . The physician should adjust the anticoagulant dose or stop, taper, or change medications that interact with the anticoagulant, and/or monitor the PT/INR very closely while the individual is receiving warfarin, to ensure that the PT/INR [A prothrombin time (PT or PT/INR) test measures how quickly your blood clots.] stabilizes within a therapeutic…
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 · D2024-12-16 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure 1 (Resident (R)78) of 1 resident reviewed for nutrition was provided nutritional supplements per physician orders to prevent potential nutritional problems or further weight loss. Findings include: Review of a facility policy titled Diet Orders states, Diet orders prescribed by the physician will be provided by the Food and Nutrition Services department. Nursing will send a Diet order Communication slip to the Food and Nutrition Services department. The FNS Director or [NAME] in charge will make or adjust the diet profile and tray card as prescribed. The diet count is also to be adjusted as needed. The diet profile and tray card will be removed upon discharge or transfer. Any discrepancy in the diet order slip will be clarified by the FNS Director or [NAME] in charge with nursing. Review of R78's Face Sheet revealed R78 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including but not limited to:…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-12-16 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to provide respiratory care in accordance with professional standards. The facility failed to ensure 1 (Resident (R)140) of 5 residents reviewed for respiratory care, received the correct oxygen flow rate per the physician order. Findings include: Review of a facility policy titled, Oxygen Administration with a revision date of 05/2007, revealed that it is the policy of this facility that oxygen therapy is administered, as ordered by the physician, or as an emergency measure until the order can be obtained. Purpose: The purpose of oxygen therapy is to provide sufficient oxygen to the bloodstream and tissues. Review of R140's Face Sheet revealed that R140 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including but not limited to: paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia, chronic systolic (congestive) heart failure, and nonrheumatic mitral (valve) insufficiency.…
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 · D2024-12-16 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on the facility policy, observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that drugs and biologicals were properly stored in 2 of 5 treatment/medication carts. Findings include: Review of the facility policy, copyright 2014, titled, Medication Storage in the Healthcare Centers documents, Medications and biological are stored safely, securely, and properly following manufacturer's recommendation or those of the supplier. The medication supply is accessible to licensed nursing personnel and pharmacy personnel. Respiratory Therapist may access medications used in the provision of respiratory services . 3. Nurses are required to check all medications for deterioration and expiration before administration. Nurses are also required to inspect medication storage facilities, including medication carts, routinely. Medication storage areas are to be kept clean, well-lit and free of clutter. Nursing staff who administer medications are responsible for the cleaning and organization of medication carts 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 · Ecited before2023-02-08 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — patternProvide 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 facility policy review, record review, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure respiratory equipment was maintained and stored appropriately for three of three residents (Resident (R) 245, R71, and R48) reviewed for respiratory care out of a total sample of 28 residents. The facility's deficient practice increased the resident's risk of respiratory complications. Findings include: Review of the facility's Oxygen Concentrator - Policy and Procedure, dated 04/2022, revealed It is the policy of this facility to provide oxygen in a safe and therapeutic manner using the oxygen concentrator equipment. 1. Review of R245's undated admission Record, located in the resident's electronic medical record (EMR) under the Profile tab, revealed R245 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included acute respiratory failure with hypoxia (low oxygen levels) and dependence on supplemental oxygen. Review of R245's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-02-08 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure 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 review of the facility's policy, observation, and interviews, the facility failed to store ice cream in a kitchen freezer at zero degrees Fahrenheit (F) or lower. This had the potential to affect residents who consumed ice cream from the kitchen. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy, dated 2018 and titled, Procedure for Freezer Storage, specified, Frozen foods should be immediately stored in the freezer upon delivery. The freezer should be maintained at a temperature of 0 [degrees] F [Fahrenheit] or lower. Review of the monthly December 2022 and January 2023 temperature logs for the kitchen's chest freezer revealed daily temperatures that ranged from nine degrees F. to 12 degrees F. Further review of these temperature logs revealed the freezer temperature never measured at zero or below. Observations on 02/06/23 at 8:35 AM revealed the interior temperature of the kitchen's chest freezer was measured at ten degrees F. Ice cream was the only food observed stored inside this freezer. Review of the monthly February 2023 temperature log for this freezer revealed…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-02-08 · tag F0638 — isolatedAssure that each resident’s assessment is updated at least once every 3 months.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on facility policy review, document review, and interviews, the facility failed to complete resident assessments (Minimum Data Set (MDS)) quarterly (every 3 months) for one (Resident (R) 66) of the 28 residents reviewed for Resident Assessment. Findings include: Review of the facility policy ''Resident Assessment,'' Revised in March of 2022, revealed PPS Assessments .1. The resident assessment coordination is responsible for the ensuring that the interdisciplinary team conducts timely and appropriate resident assessments and reviews according to the following requirement: .(2) Quarterly Assessments. Review of R66's electronic medical record (EMR) Census tab revealed an admission date of 03/16/22. Review of the EMR MDS tab revealed R66's last assessment was a comprehensive MDS assessment completed 09/15/22. The facility failed to perform the next quarterly assessment. During an interview with the Director of Nursing, DON, on 02/08/23 at 3:15 PM she stated, I am unsure why that assessment was missed, I will look into that. During an interview with the MDS Coordinators, (MDSC 1…
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
$12,043 in federal fines across 2 penalties.
- $4,022 — penalty dated 2024-12-16
- $8,021 — penalty dated 2024-12-16
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 THE ENSIGN GROUP — 342 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 | 3.2 | -0.2 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 2.7 | +0.3 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 4.4 | -1.4 vs chain |
The other 341 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.2★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 341; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| BURNAM, SOON | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 11/16/2015 |
| RASHID, KHURRAM | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/12/2025 |
| ABBOTT, SWATI | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2020 |
| AGWUNOBI, JOHN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2023 |
| BLOUIN, ANN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 11/28/2018 |
| PARKINSON, MARK | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 10/01/2024 |
| SHAW, DAREN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 03/01/2012 |
| SMITH, BARRY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 06/01/2014 |
| BURTON, SPENCER | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 05/30/2015 |
| CHRISTENSEN, CHRISTOPHER | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 11/01/2014 |
| KEETCH, CHAD | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 12/17/2021 |
| PETERSON, FORREST | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2016 |
| PORT, BARRY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 07/26/2018 |
| SNAPPER, SUZANNE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 08/01/2009 |
| WITTEKIND, BEVERLY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 09/29/2008 |
| RODRIGUEZ, JOSE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/22/2022 |
| AGAPE HEALTH HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2022 |
| ENSIGN SERVICES INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2016 |
| STANDARD BEARER HEALTHCARE OP, LP | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2022 |
| THE ENSIGN GROUP INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2022 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 23 rows in the source record cover these 20 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
4 organizational owners 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 $1.1M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 10% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
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 425379. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-01-29, 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.