McCoy Memorial Nursing Center

207 Chappell Drive, Bishopville, SC 29010 (803) 484-5636
For profit - Limited Liability company 120 Beds CARLYLE SENIOR CARE Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
68/100
#83 of 186 in SC
Last Inspection: July 2025

Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.

Overview

McCoy Memorial Nursing Center receives a Trust Grade of C+, indicating it is slightly above average but not exceptional. Ranked #83 out of 186 facilities in South Carolina, it falls in the top half, while being the only option in Lee County. The facility shows an improving trend, reducing issues from 2 in 2024 to 1 in 2025. Staffing is a strength, with a 4 out of 5 rating and only 24% turnover, which is well below the state average, helping maintain continuity of care. However, there are concerns, such as a resident sustaining major injuries due to a staff member failing to engage wheel locks on a shower chair, and issues with inadequate tracking of staff Covid-19 vaccinations, which could jeopardize resident safety. Additionally, medications were improperly stored in a resident's room, raising further concerns about safety protocols.

Trust Score
C+
68/100
In South Carolina
#83/186
Top 44%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Better
2 → 1 violations
Staff Stability
✓ Good
24% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 24 points below South Carolina's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
Penalties
○ Average
$8,512 in fines. Higher than 53% of South Carolina facilities. Some compliance issues.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 25 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for South Carolina. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
○ Average
6 deficiencies on record. Average for a facility this size. Mostly minor or procedural issues.
★★★☆☆
3.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 2 issues
2025: 1 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
  • Low Staff Turnover (24%) · Staff stability means consistent care
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover is low (24%)

    24 points below South Carolina average of 48%

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, staff retention, fire safety.

The Bad

3-Star Overall Rating

Near South Carolina average (2.8)

Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities

Federal Fines: $8,512

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

Chain: CARLYLE SENIOR CARE

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 6 deficiencies on record

1 actual harm
Jul 2025 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of facility policy, record reviews, observations and interviews the facility failed to ensure medications were p...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of facility policy, record reviews, observations and interviews the facility failed to ensure medications were properly stored and safeguarded. Specifically, medications were observed on a bedside table in Resident (R)53's room. Review of the facility policy titled Medication Storage in the Healthcare Centers last revised 09/15/17 revealed, Medications and biologicals are stored safely, securely, and properly following manufacturer's recommendations or those of the supplier. The medication supply is accessible only to licensed nursing personnel and pharmacy personnel.During an observation on 07/22/25 at 11:40AM by two surveyors, a disposable cup containing seven loose pills were observed on the bedside table of R53. Review of R53's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed R53 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including but not limited to: symptomatic epilepsy and epileptic syndromes with simple partial seizures and unspecified dementia. R53's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) date of 07/14/25, revealed a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) of 10 out of 15 indicating R53 was moderately cognitively impaired.During an interview on 07/22/25 at 11:57AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)1, stated she is assigned to R53 today and acknowledged her mistake and understood that medications should never be left at a resident's bedside without confirming they have been ingested. LPN1 went back to give medication to the resident, in the last 10 or 15 minutes. Then LPN1, stated, I'm going to be honest, this is my first time working with the resident, she put the cup to her mouth, and I thought she had taken her meds. I should have looked to make sure the resident had taken her meds; this is all on me. There is no time that meds should be left at resident's bedside side without seeing resident take medication.During an interview on 07/24/25 at 12:30 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON), outlined her expectations for nurses regarding medication administration. Nurses are expected to administer residents' medication and observe them taking it. If a resident refuses to take the medication, nurses are to collect and discard the medication and then notify the physician.
Jul 2024 1 deficiency 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, record review, and review of facility policy the facility failed to protect Resident (R)3) from accident ha...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, record review, and review of facility policy the facility failed to protect Resident (R)3) from accident hazards in the resident's environment specifically, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA)1 failed to engage the wheel locks on a shower chair, causing R3 to sustain a fall with major injuries. Findings Include: Review of a facility policy titled, Fall Prevention Program last revised 09/01/23, states, Each resident . will receive care and services in accordance with their individualized level of risk to minimalize the likelihood of falls. Review of R3's Face Sheet revealed R3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including but not limited to: Alzheimer's, dementia, and osteoarthritis. Review of R3's Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date of 05/22/24, revealed R3 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 09 out of 15, indicating R3 was moderately, cognitively impaired. Review of R3's Nursing Progress Note dated 06/04/24 at 1:30 PM, revealed At 1220PM, CNA notified nurse that resident was being assisted with showering and resident fell from the shower chair. Nurse observed resident sitting on her buttocks with the shower chair behind her and the chair leaning forward onto the resident's back. The resident's left arm was wrapped on the arm of the chair in attempt to brace herself. The resident's right leg was extended in front of her and the left leg was bent at the knee. Resident was guarding her knee and complained of pain and states she was unable to extend her leg. Review of a Hospital Report from the local hospital dated 06/05/24, stated, Xray Tibia-Fibula: Comminuted fractures are seen of the proximal tibia fibula, the tibial fracture is severely comminuted. The fibular head fracture is relatively subtle. During an interview on 07/05/24 at 1:27 PM, CNA1 stated she was assisting R3 with her shower when she leaned over to dry her legs off and the shower chair slipped from up under her. CNA1 then stated that the shower chairs do have locks on the wheels, but R3's locks were not locked that day. CNA1 further stated that shower chairs are normally to be locked while using them. CNA1 repeated this statement twice confirming she did not lock the wheels on the shower chair. During an interview with R3 on 07/05/24 at 2:56 PM, R3 stated she was wet, and the chair was wet, and she fell. She said, I was drying off if I remember right. Then my legs went flying in different directions and I hurt my leg. Now, she cannot stand. During an interview on 07/05/24 at 2:55 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated that staff should lock shower chairs or any chair with wheels while performing ADL care. The DON further stated that that particular shower chair would move anyways even if locked so they had it replaced after R3's fall.
Mar 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

PASARR Coordination (Tag F0644)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on the review of the facility policy, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to refer Resident (R)8, with a ne...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on the review of the facility policy, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to refer Resident (R)8, with a new diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder/Bipolar type was screened for specialized services in a timely manner for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for new diagnosis of a mental illness. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy title Resident Assessment- Coordination with PASSAR Program with an implementation date of 10/30/23, states: This facility coordinates assessments with the preadmission screening and resident (PASARR) program under Medicaid to ensure that individuals with a mental disorder, intellectual disability, or a related condition receive care and services in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs. Section 9. Any resident who exhibits a newly evident or possible serious mental disorder, intellectual disability, or a related condition will be referred promptly to the state mental health or intellectual disability authority for a level 2 resident review. Examples include: A: A resident who exhibits behavioral, psychiatric, or mood-related symptoms suggesting the presence of a mental disorder (Where dementia is not the primary diagnosis.) Review of R8's admission Record located in the Electronic Medical Record (EMR), revealed R8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including but not limited to: bipolar disorder, cognitive communication deficit, dementia, and encephalopathy. On 01/28/23, a new diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder/bipolar type was added to the resident's diagnosis list. Review of R8's EMR did not reveal any documentation of a PASARR Level II. During an interview on 03/21/24 at 11:23 AM, the Registered Nurse/Minimal Data Set Coordinator (RNMDS) stated that she is still learning the process related to PASSARs and has recently went through the training. The RNMDS confirmed there was no referral for a Level 2 PASSAR done for R8. The RNMDS stated that there is typically a form that is to be filled out, which she stated she didn't know how and has not been doing that. The RNMDS concluded she normally reaches out to her point of contact, which is another RN at CLTC (Community of Long Term Care), to confirm if her completion of PASSARs are done correctly. During an interview on 03/21/24 approximately at 12:25 PM, the Facility's Physician (FP) states that he is familiar with the resident and her diagnoses which were obtained from family interviews and her health chart. The FP further states that given R8's mental illness, and progressed paranoia, visual hallucinations, and metabolic concerns/symptoms since admission, he concluded the new diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder. The FP stated the resident has had a history of PTSD related to being sexually abused in her younger years and states that he rarely changes what psych has already put in place for the resident, still trying to adjust medications for the resident to be stable and are always having to increase her medication dosages up most of the time. During a phone interview on 03/21/24 at 2:10 PM, the RN from Community of Long Term Care (RNCLTC) stated, If a resident acquired a new diagnosis of mental health illness while residing in the facility, with progressed behaviors, the facility would have to send over the referral/form to DMH (Department of Mental Health) to determine if it's suitable for the resident to reside in the facility or be transferred to a specialized environment. DMH is supposed to follow up on the referral in a timely manner.
Apr 2022 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0554 (Tag F0554)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to completely assess Resident (R)29 for choices of self ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to completely assess Resident (R)29 for choices of self administration of medications, 1 of 1 reviewed for self-administration of medications. Findings include: Review of facility policy titled, Self Administration Policy last revised 11/28/16, revealed Each resident who desires to self-administer medication may be permitted to do so if the facility's interdisciplinary team has determined that the practice would be safe for the resident and other residents of the facility. Self-administration should be written in the care plan once safety has been established. An observation and interview with R29 on 3/29/22 at 9:12 AM revealed R29 with medications in a cup. R29 was able to explain their Eliquis pill and what it is used for, and further stated that they do not like to take all of the medications at one time and that a few of the nurses often leave their medications in a cup for them to take later. R29 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including, but not limited to; personal history of malignant carcinoid tumor of rectum, pulmonary hypertension, stage 3 pressure ulcer, and hypomagnesemia. Record review of R29's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 2/1/22 revealed R29 has a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14 out of 15, which reveals they are cognitively intact. Record review on 3/30/22 at 11:30 AM of R29's Electronic Medication Administration Record for March 2022 revealed R29 was administered on 3/29/22 at 9:00 AM the following medications: 1. Gabapentin 300 MG 2. Eliquis 5 MG 3. Stool Softener 100 MG Record review on 3/31/22 at 1:00 PM of R29's Self- Administration of Medication - Data Collection Tool revealed R29's assessment to self-administer only included Magic Mouthwash and did not document approval to self-administer any other medications. An interview on 4/1/22 at 2:17 PM with Registered Nurse (RN)1 revealed that residents that would like to self-administer medications should have an assessment completed for all of the medications they would be taking alone.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to update Resident (R)29's medical record ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to update Resident (R)29's medical record to reflect their code status. Findings include: Review of facility policy titled: Coordination of Hospice Services last revised 11/27/17, revealed The facility will maintain communication with Hospice as it relates to the resident's plan of care and services to ensure each entity is aware of their responsibilities. R29 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including, but not limited to; personal history of malignant carcinoid tumor of rectum, pulmonary hypertension, stage 3 pressure ulcer, and hypomagnesemia. Record review on 3/30/22 at 11:03 AM of R29's electronic medical record revealed their code status as Full Code as a Physician Order on the monthly orders for April 2022. Record review on 3/30/22 at 11:05 AM of R29's paper (physical) medical record revealed an Advanced Directive Acknowledgment of Receipt for R29 with Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) and two physician signatures dated 10/11/21. An interview on 4/01/22 at 1:56 PM with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)4 revealed that R29's code status is DNR and that staff are trained to review the paper medical record on the unit to ensure resident's code status. An interview on 4/01/22 at 2:17 PM with Registered Nurse (RN)1 revealed the paper medical record DNR order in R29's chart was written by the Hospice Physician and it should have been updated in the electronic medical record. She confirmed the electronic medical record and the physical medical record did not match for code status.
CONCERN (E)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0888 (Tag F0888)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview, record review and review of facility policy and procedure, the facility failed to ensure 100% (one hundred percent) vaccination of all staff including those who provide care, treat...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, record review and review of facility policy and procedure, the facility failed to ensure 100% (one hundred percent) vaccination of all staff including those who provide care, treatment, or other services for the facility and/or its residents, under contract or by other arrangement. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure a process for tracking and securely documenting the Covid-19 vaccination status of contracted staff. Facility census 108. Findings include: Review of facility policy titled Employee Covid-19 Vaccinations revised date 03/22 revealed .2. Employees who provide any care, treatment, or other services for the facility and/or its residents regardless of clinical responsibility or resident contact are required to be fully vaccinated (CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) term) or up to date (CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) term) against Covid-19. These include the following: a. Facility employees b. Licensed practitioners c. Students, trainees, and volunteers; and d. Individuals who provide care, treatment, or other services for the facility and/or its residents, under contract or by other arrangement .4. The facility will ensure that all staff (except for staff who have pending requests for, or who have been granted exemptions to the vaccination requirements, or staff for whom Covid-19 vaccination must be temporarily delayed, as per CDC recommendations, due to clinical precautions and considerations) have received, at a minimum, a single-dose Covid-19 vaccine, or the first dose of the primary vaccination series for a multi-dose Covid-19 vaccine prior to staff providing any care, treatment, or other services for the facility and/or its residents. 5. The facility will ensure that all staff (except for staff who have been granted exemptions to the vaccination requirements, or those staff for whom Covid-19 must be temporarily delayed, as recommended by the CDC, due to clinical precautions and considerations) are fully vaccinated (CMS term) or up to date (CDC term) for Covid-19 . Review of facility vaccination log identified one hundred and fifteen (115) employees of the facility and eighteen (18) contracted staff members for a total of one hundred and thirty-three (133) vaccination status for the facility. Further review identified two (2) staff granted exemptions (one for medical and one for religious), one (1) temporary delay/new hire exemption, and one (1) not vaccinated without exemption/delay. Review of facility contracts on 04/01/22 at 3:45 PM identified twelve (12) additional contracted services used by the facility to provide services to the residents. Review of facility Medical Vendors List dated 04/02/22 at 7:45 AM provided by the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) identified one hundred and twenty-two (122) additional employees that could potentially enter the facility and provide care, treatment, or other services to the residents. During an interview on 04/01/22 at 12:27 PM with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON)/ Infection Control Preventionist (IP) stated, I keep track of vaccination statuses for our staff, housekeeping, and therapy. We are trying to get every ones info (information) who is contracted. I have some info for hospice, nurse consultants, and RD (registered dietician) but it is not in a spreadsheet format. Pharmacy provides the vaccines for the facility and we set up a covid vaccine clinic every month when the pharmacist is here. I do not have information for the other contracted staff used by the facility .
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • 24% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 24 points below South Carolina's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
Concerns
  • • 6 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
Bottom line: Mixed indicators with Trust Score of 68/100. Visit in person and ask pointed questions.

About This Facility

What is Mccoy Memorial Nursing Center's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns McCoy Memorial Nursing Center an overall rating of 3 out of 5 stars, which is considered average nationally. Within South Carolina, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This mid-range rating indicates the facility meets federal standards but may have areas for improvement.

How is Mccoy Memorial Nursing Center Staffed?

CMS rates McCoy Memorial Nursing Center's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 24%, compared to the South Carolina average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Mccoy Memorial Nursing Center?

State health inspectors documented 6 deficiencies at McCoy Memorial Nursing Center during 2022 to 2025. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm and 5 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Mccoy Memorial Nursing Center?

McCoy Memorial Nursing Center is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by CARLYLE SENIOR CARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 120 certified beds and approximately 116 residents (about 97% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in Bishopville, South Carolina.

How Does Mccoy Memorial Nursing Center Compare to Other South Carolina Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in South Carolina, McCoy Memorial Nursing Center's overall rating (3 stars) is above the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (24%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Mccoy Memorial Nursing Center?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?"

Is Mccoy Memorial Nursing Center Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, McCoy Memorial Nursing Center has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 3-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in South Carolina. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.

Do Nurses at Mccoy Memorial Nursing Center Stick Around?

Staff at McCoy Memorial Nursing Center tend to stick around. With a turnover rate of 24%, the facility is 22 percentage points below the South Carolina average of 46%. Low turnover is a positive sign. It means caregivers have time to learn each resident's needs, medications, and personal preferences. Consistent staff also notice subtle changes in a resident's condition more quickly. Registered Nurse turnover is also low at 10%, meaning experienced RNs are available to handle complex medical needs.

Was Mccoy Memorial Nursing Center Ever Fined?

McCoy Memorial Nursing Center has been fined $8,512 across 1 penalty action. This is below the South Carolina average of $33,164. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.

Is Mccoy Memorial Nursing Center on Any Federal Watch List?

McCoy Memorial Nursing Center is not on any federal watch list. The most significant is the Special Focus Facility (SFF) program, which identifies the bottom 1% of nursing homes nationally based on persistent, serious quality problems. Not being on this list means the facility has avoided the pattern of deficiencies that triggers enhanced federal oversight. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review the facility's inspection history directly.