NHC Healthcare - Parklane
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
NHC Healthcare - Parklane has received a Trust Grade of C, indicating that it is average compared to other facilities, meaning it is neither great nor terrible. It ranks #87 out of 186 facilities in South Carolina, placing it in the top half, and #3 out of 14 in Richland County, which shows that only two local options are rated higher. The facility's performance has remained stable, with six issues reported in both 2023 and 2024. Staffing is a concern here, with a turnover rate of 59%, higher than the state average, and RN coverage is less than 80% of other South Carolina facilities, which could impact care quality. While the facility has not incurred any fines, which is a positive sign, there have been serious incidents such as a resident who went without pain medication for six hours after a fall, resulting in significant discomfort. Additionally, there were concerns about food safety practices that could pose health risks to residents. Overall, while there are some strengths, including no fines and decent quality measures, families should be aware of the staffing concerns and past incidents when considering this nursing home.
- Trust Score
- C
- In South Carolina
- #87/186
- Safety Record
- Moderate
- Inspections
- Holding Steady
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 59% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most South Carolina facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 29 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for South Carolina. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 19 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Near South Carolina average (2.8)
Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities
13pts above South Carolina avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
11 points above South Carolina average of 48%
The Ugly 19 deficiencies on record
Dec 2024
6 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 observations, record review, interviews, and facility policy, the facility failed to ensure medications were properly s...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident (R)64 for scheduled pain medication for 1 of 1 resident reviewed.
Find...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, record reviews, and facility policy, the facility failed to provide Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) care,...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, record review and facility policy, the facility failed to ensure storage of the nebulizer mas...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, facility policy and interviews, the facility failed to remove expired medications and biologicals in 2 of 2 medication storage rooms. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Room Equipment
(Tag F0908)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interviews and facility policy, the facility failed to report and ensure equipment, specifically showers...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2023
6 deficiencies
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Deficiency F0697
(Tag F0697)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews, record reviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure that pain management...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0561
(Tag F0561)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to honor Resident (R)9's request for a...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Notification of Changes
(Tag F0580)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews, record reviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to immediately notify the phys...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Unnecessary Medications
(Tag F0759)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, interviews, and review of the facility policy titled, Specific Medication Administration Procedures for Injectable Medication Administration, and the package insert of the manuf...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** A review of R2's Face Sheet revealed the admission date of 02/16/23 and the diagnoses include, but are not limited to; protein-c...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the facility policy titled Medication Storage in the Facility, observations and interviews, the facility fail...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2021
7 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0645
(Tag F0645)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the PASARR (Preadmission Screening and Resident Review) for one (Resident #42) of one residents reviewed for PASARR completion ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that a resident's physician's order was followed related to hospice education services for 1 of 5 sampled residents reviewed for un...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0692
(Tag F0692)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, record review and review of facility policy and procedure the facility failed to ensure one (Resident #31) of three residents reviewed for nutrition maintained suffici...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident's medical record was accurately documented related to services provided for 1 of 19 sampled residents reviewed. Resident...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0679
(Tag F0679)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
The facility admitted Resident #14 with diagnoses including, but not limited to, Epilepsy, Auditory Hallucinations, Dementia with Behaviors, Major Depression, Hereditary Retinal Dystrophy and Hearing ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations, interviews, and review of the facility policy titled, Soiled Linen Collection and Handling in Patient Areas, the facility failed to ensure soiled linen was bagged at point of us...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observations, interviews, and review of facility policy and procedure, the facility failed to store and prepare food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. This fa...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most South Carolina facilities.
- • 19 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
- • Grade C (55/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
- • 59% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
About This Facility
What is Nhc Healthcare - Parklane's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns NHC Healthcare - Parklane 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 Nhc Healthcare - Parklane Staffed?
CMS rates NHC Healthcare - Parklane's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 59%, which is 13 percentage points above the South Carolina average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 69%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.
What Have Inspectors Found at Nhc Healthcare - Parklane?
State health inspectors documented 19 deficiencies at NHC Healthcare - Parklane during 2021 to 2024. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm and 18 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Nhc Healthcare - Parklane?
NHC Healthcare - Parklane 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 NATIONAL HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 106 certified beds and approximately 100 residents (about 94% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in Columbia, South Carolina.
How Does Nhc Healthcare - Parklane Compare to Other South Carolina Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in South Carolina, NHC Healthcare - Parklane's overall rating (3 stars) is above the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (59%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Nhc Healthcare - Parklane?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's high staff turnover rate.
Is Nhc Healthcare - Parklane Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, NHC Healthcare - Parklane 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 Nhc Healthcare - Parklane Stick Around?
Staff turnover at NHC Healthcare - Parklane is high. At 59%, the facility is 13 percentage points above the South Carolina average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 69%. RNs handle complex medical decisions and coordinate care — frequent RN changes can directly impact care quality. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?
Was Nhc Healthcare - Parklane Ever Fined?
NHC Healthcare - Parklane has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.
Is Nhc Healthcare - Parklane on Any Federal Watch List?
NHC Healthcare - Parklane 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.