Carlyle Senior Care of Williston
5721 Springfield Road, Williston, SC 29853 · For profit - Corporation · 44 certified beds · (803) 266-3229 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- nursing-staff turnover (63%) 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) | 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 | 2 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 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 | 25.0% | 11.9% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 12.9% | 6.3% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.6% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 1.3% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 2.8% | 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 | 5.9% | 3.2% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 23.8% | 12.7% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 15.0% | 21.0% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 90.6% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 0.0% | 5.1% | 4.7% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 12.8% | 16.7% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 40.2% | 15.3% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 7.1% | 1.5% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 96.0% | 78.0% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 9.1% | 24.3% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 13.3% | 13.9% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.63 | 2.04 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.09 | 1.84 | 1.80 | worse |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ 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.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.25 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 35% 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 12.7%CMS range 7.7–18.6 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 95.0% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 5.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.03 | 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 44 beds and averages 43.8 residents a day — about 100% occupied, or roughly 0 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 3.79 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.40 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.15 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 3.33 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.98 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.43 to 0.35 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 63% is well above 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 more than at the previous inspection — worsening. 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.
10 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · E2026-04-17 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on facility policy review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents' right to reside in a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, related to routine cleaning of resident rooms and bathrooms. The deficient practice affected 8 (Rooms 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12) of 9 resident rooms reviewed for environmental concerns. Findings included: Review of an undated facility policy titled, Routine Bathroom Cleaning indicated, It is the policy of this facility to establish policies, procedures and guidelines to provide a clean and sanitary environment for residents, staff and visitors in order to prevent cross contamination and transmission of healthcare associated infection (HAI). The policy's Procedure included 1. Working from clean areas to dirty areas, which included d. Clean inside and outside the sink, sink faucets and mirror. Wipe plumbing under the sink. Apply disinfectants to interior of sink and allow sufficient contact time with disinfectant according 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 · D2026-04-17 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on facility policy review, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were accurately coded to reflect residents' status, which affected 1 (Resident (R)32) of 2 residents reviewed for tube feeding and R40, 1 of 1 resident reviewed for edema. Findings included: An undated facility policy titled, MDS [Minimum Data Set] 3.0 Completion, revealed Residents are assessed, using a comprehensive assessment process, in order to identify care needs and to develop an interdisciplinary care plan. The policy revealed, 1. According to federal regulations, the facility conducts initially and periodically a comprehensive, accurate and standardized assessment of each resident's functional capacity, using the RAI [Resident Assessment Instrument] specified by the State. The policy revealed, 4. Care Plan Team Responsibility for Assessment Completion included a. Interdisciplinary Responsibility for Completion of MDS Sections, which included i. The responsibility of all sections of the MDS will be clearly assigned; ii. Persons completing part 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 · D2026-04-17 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure treatment in accordance with professional standards of practice for 1 (Resident (R)25) of 2 sampled residents reviewed for wound dressing changes. Specifically, R25's wound dressing was not changed on 04/13/26 as ordered. Findings included: Review of the facility policy titled, Documentation of Wound Treatments, dated 08/01/2025, indicated, Wound treatments are documented at the time of each treatment. Review of the facility policy titled, Clean Dressing Change, dated 11/30/2025, indicated, Physician's orders will specify type of dressing and frequency of changes. An admission Record indicated the facility admitted R25 on 10/24/25. According to the admission Record, the resident had a medical history that included a diagnosis of a chronic non-pressure ulcer of the right lower leg with unspecified severity (a persistent sore or wound not caused by pressure). A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 01/23/26, revealed R25 had a Brief Interview…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-04-17 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on facility policy review, facility document review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure drugs and biologicals were labeled in accordance with professional principles. Specifically, the facility failed to date a multi-dose vial of tuberculin purified protein derivative (PPD) (a solution used to detect tuberculosis infection) with an opened date and a discard date and failed to discard an expired multi-dose vial of tuberculin PPD. The facility also failed to date a semaglutide (an antidiabetic) injection pen with an opened date and discard date. The deficiencies were identified in 1 of 2 medication storage refrigerators observed. Findings included: Review of a facility policy titled, Medication Management, dated 04/10/2019, indicated, All medications and biologicals used in the facility will be labeled in accordance with current state and federal regulations to facilitate consideration of precautions and safe administration of medications. The policy indicated, 4. Labels for individual drug containers must include, which included f. The date the drug was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-04-17 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) were implemented for 2 (Resident (R)25 and R40) of 4 residents reviewed for EBP. Specifically, staff failed to don gowns prior to high contact resident care activities for R25 and R40. Additionally, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)2 failed to dispose of worn gloves prior to leaving R40's room. Findings included: 1. Review of the facility policy titled, Enhanced Barrier Precautions, dated 05/30/2024, indicated, It is the policy of this facility to implement enhanced barrier precautions for the prevention of transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms [MDRO]. The policy also indicated, 'Enhanced barrier precautions [EBP] refer to an infection control intervention designed to reduce transmission of multidrug resistant organisms that employs targeted gown and gloves use during high contact resident care activities. The policy also indicated, Wounds (e.g. [exempli gratia, for example], chronic wounds such as pressure ulcers, diabetic foot ulcers,…
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 · D2025-03-06 · tag F0623 — isolatedProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal 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 record review and interview, the facility failed to notify in writing the resident's responsible party (RP) of three of three Residents (R4, R23, and R33) transfer to the hospital out of a sample of 17 residents. This had the potential for the resident's RP not to be informed of the resident's transfer to the hospital and the reasons why. Findings include: 1.Review of the electronic medical record (EMR) under the Face Sheet tab revealed R4 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of R4's EMR under the Notes tab revealed R4 was admitted to the hospital on [DATE] due to hyperkalemia. There was no documentation, located in the EMR, of written notification regarding R4's transfer to R4's RP. 2.Review of the EMR under the Face Sheet tab revealed R23 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of R23's EMR under the Notes tab revealed R23 was admitted to the hospital on [DATE] due to sepsis. There was no documentation located in the EMR, of written notification regarding R23's…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-03-06 · tag F0625 — isolatedNotify the resident or the resident’s representative in writing how long the nursing home will hold the resident’s bed in cases of transfer to a hospital or therapeutic leave.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide written information regarding the facility's bed hold policy to the resident's responsible party (RP) at the time of transfer or within 24 hours of the transfer for three residents (Resident (R) 4, R23 and R33) of three reviewed for hospitalization out of a total sample of 17 residents. This failure has the potential to negatively impact any resident transferred to the hospital due to the RP not being aware of the bed hold options. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Bed Hold Notice Upon Transfer dated 02/01/23 indicated, Policy: At the time of transfer for hospitalization or therapeutic leave, the facility will provide the resident and/or the resident's representative written notice which specifies the duration of the bed-hold policy and addresses the information explaining the return of the resident to the next available bed .Bed Hold Notice Upon Transfer 1. Before a resident is transferred 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 · F2023-06-14 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — widespreadKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
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 facility policy reviews, the facility failed to protect the confidential health information of residents on 2 of 2 halls. Specifically, the facility posted the username and password to the electronic health record (EHR) on the wall. This had the potential to affect all residents. Findings include: Review of a policy titled Confidentiality of Personal and Medical Records, dated 10/24/2022, revealed, this facility honors the resident's right to secure, and confidentiality of all information contained in a resident's records, regardless of the form of storage or location of the record. 1. Personal and medical records include all types of records the facility might keep on a resident, whether they are medical, social, fund accounts, automated, or other. On 06/12/2023 at 12:17 PM, an activities of daily living (ADL) coding poster was observed hanging on the wall, located on A-hall, next to an electronic touch screen kiosk, next to resident room [ROOM NUMBER]. There was a yellow…
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 · D2023-06-14 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interviews, facility document review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide services to a resident who was unable to carry out activities of daily living (ADL) necessary to maintain good grooming and personal hygiene for 1 (Resident (R)24) of 6 sampled residents reviewed for assistance ADL care. Specifically, R24 had toenails that were long, thick, and jagged. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Nail Care, dated 11/27/2017, revealed, the purpose of this procedure guidelines for the provision of care to a resident's nails for good grooming and health. 1. Assessments of resident nails will be conducted on admission and readmission to determine the resident nail condition, needs, and preferences for nail care. 6. Principles of nail care: a. Nails should be kept smooth to avoid skin injury. c. If a resident had a toe infection, diabetes mellitus, neurologic disorders, renal failure, or peripheral vascular disease (PVD), toenail trimming should be performed by a physician or practitioner. Review of the facility policy titled,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-06-14 · 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
Based on review of the facility policy, observation and interviews, the facility failed to complete ensure appropriate infection control and hand hygiene protocols were followed during an observation of the laundry for 1 of 1 laundry facility reviewed. Findings include: Record review of facility policy titled, Linen and Personal Laundry revealed All contaminated linen and personal laundry will be handled appropriately to prevent cross-contamination. Laundry will be hygienically cleaned and handled to prevent recontamination from dust and dirt during loading and transport. When moving from the soiled area to the clean area (drying, folding, and storage), staff will remove the gown and gloves, and wash their hands with antibacterial soap. An observation and interview on 6/14/23 at 8:54 AM revealed Housekeeping Staff (HK)1 with appropriate PPE and handling linen to be put in the washing machine. After putting the linen in the machine, HK1 was observed walking into the dirty linen room and doffing PPE appropriately. Observation revealed HK1 exiting the dirty linen area without…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to CARLYLE SENIOR CARE — 7 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 | 2.1 | +0.9 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.6 | +0.4 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 3.3 | -0.3 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 1.6 | +1.4 vs chain |
The other 6 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.1★, per CMS)
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NEW DAY HEALTH VENTURES, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 01/01/2023 |
| RIDENOUR, BRENDA | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 01/01/2023 |
| CRANFORD, RICHARD | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 01/01/2023 |
1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
About 91% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $117K 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 425297. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-04-17, 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.