Heartland Health Care Center - Greenville East

601 Sulphur Springs Road, Greenville, SC 29617 (864) 246-2721
For profit - Corporation 132 Beds PACS GROUP Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
75/100
#8 of 186 in SC
Last Inspection: April 2025

Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.

Overview

Heartland Health Care Center - Greenville East has a Trust Grade of B, indicating it is a good choice for families looking for care. With a state rank of #8 out of 186 facilities, they are among the top half in South Carolina, and they rank #1 out of 19 in Greenville County, making it the best local option. The facility is improving, as the number of issues has decreased from 2 in 2023 to 1 in 2025. Staffing is average with a rating of 3 out of 5 stars and a turnover rate of 41%, which is better than the state average of 46%, suggesting that staff members tend to stay longer and build relationships with residents. However, the facility has incurred $38,389 in fines, which is concerning and indicates some compliance issues, and they had serious incidents where a resident experienced multiple falls due to care plan failures, resulting in injuries. Additionally, there were concerns about food safety practices, as improper food storage was noted, affecting all residents. Overall, while there are strengths in staffing and overall care quality, families should be aware of these significant weaknesses.

Trust Score
B
75/100
In South Carolina
#8/186
Top 4%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Better
2 → 1 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
41% turnover. Near South Carolina's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
✓ Good
$38,389 in fines. Lower than most South Carolina facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 38 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for South Carolina. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
○ Average
8 deficiencies on record. Average for a facility this size. Mostly minor or procedural issues.
★★★★★
5.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 2 issues
2025: 1 issues

The Good

  • 5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (41%)

    7 points below South Carolina average of 48%

Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 41%

Near South Carolina avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Federal Fines: $38,389

Above median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

Chain: PACS GROUP

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 8 deficiencies on record

2 actual harm
Apr 2025 1 deficiency
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 review of the facility policy, observation, and interview, the facility failed to store, prepare, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 124 out ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on review of the facility policy, observation, and interview, the facility failed to store, prepare, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 124 out of 124 residents. Findings include: Review of the facility's Food Storage: Dry Goods policy and procedure revised in 02/2023, revealed, 1. All items will be stored on shelves at least 6 inches above the floor. Review of the facility's Food Storage: Cold Foods policy and procedure revised in 02/2023 revealed, 5. All foods will be stored wrapped or in covered containers, labeled and dated, and arranged in a manner to prevent cross contamination. During a tour of the kitchen on 04/08/25 at approximately 7:45 AM, a box of cereal and a box of thickened sweet tea were stored on the floor. Dented cans of black-eyed peas and chili were found in the storeroom stored with ready to use cans of food. A plastic container with what appeared to be egg salad was not labeled or dated. In a reach-in refrigerator, a container of pureed fruit was not labeled and had no date. A plastic zip lock bag with a date of 04/02/25, was not labeled. In the walk-in refrigerator, two (2) cases of chocolate milk were observed with expiration dates of 04/02/25. In the same walk-in refrigerator, four (4) plastic containers of various unidentifiable food were observed with no label and no date. Pepperoni was observed partially wrapped in plastic wrap with no date or label and was stored on top of raw beef which also had no date or label and was not in a pan or container. The beef was thawed and in cryovac. The shelving, vent hoods, ceiling vents, and floor throughout the entire kitchen appeared to be dirty. During an interview on 04/08/25 at approximately 8:30 AM, the Account Manager (AM) stated they agreed with observations made and that they were going to throw away every container that was not labeled and dated because they did not know how old the food in the containers was were. During an interview on 04/08/25 at approximately 1:00 PM, the Dietary Manager (DM)1 stated that they just started working at the facility the week before the survey. DM1 stated that they walked into a mess and they were making changes in the kitchen to address the issues. During an interview on 04/11/25 at approximately 10:00 AM, the Administrator stated that they started in December and was told that the person running the kitchen was a Certified Dietary Manager (CDM), but was not a CDM. The Administrator stated that they identified the kitchen as a problem a month into working at the facility. The Administrator stated that it took time replace the company that was running the kitchen and to find a different company.
May 2023 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0847 (Tag F0847)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that binding arbitration agreements were only entered into b...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that binding arbitration agreements were only entered into by residents who had the cognitive ability to understand the information being presented and make an informed decision about whether to enter the binding arbitration agreement, prior to signing their consent. Two (Resident (R) 207 and 209) of three residents reviewed for binding arbitration agreements had cognitive impairment which limited their ability to understand the information being presented and, in response, make an informed decision as to whether they wished to enter into the agreement. This failure creates the potential for residents to lose legal rights to take action against the facility. Findings include: 1. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 05/16/23 revealed R207 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included sepsis, moderate protein-calorie malnutrition, metabolic encephalopathy, and urinary tract infection. Per the MDS, R207 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 10/15, indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Review of an Arbitration Agreement provided by the facility, dated 05/10/23, revealed R207's signature indicating understanding of the arbitration agreement. Further review of the arbitration agreement revealed that there was no signature of a responsible party or guardian. Observation on 05/29/23 at 4:33 PM revealed R207 was sitting in her wheelchair and had been placed at the nurse's station due to her confusion. During an attempted interview with R207, on 05/31/23 at 08:20 AM, R207 was confused and unable to answer any questions. Interview with the Social Services Director (SSD) on 05/30/23 at 12:58 PM revealed she performs a social work initial assessment within 48 hours on all newly admitted residents. The SSD stated part of her initial assessment is to determine whether the resident has decisional capacity. Review of a Social Services Evaluation, dated 05/11/23 and located under the Assessments tab of the electronic medical record (EMR), revealed that the resident was moderately cognitively impaired and had barriers to communication which included receptive/expressive deficits .confusion. Per the section of the Evaluation titled, Decision Making, it stated that R207 did not make her own decisions and R207's husband's name was listed as the person who made decisions for the resident. During an interview with the Administrator on 05/31/23 at 6:00 PM, she confirmed R207 was cognitively impaired, so she could not have understood the arbitration agreement that she signed. 2. Review of the admission MDS with an ARD of 05/28/23 and which was still in progress, revealed R209 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included cognitive communication deficit, alcohol dependence with other alcohol-induced disorders, and alcohol abuse with withdrawal delirium. Review of document titled Social Services Evaluation dated 05/25/23 located under the Assessments tab of the EMR revealed under the section Decision Making that R209 was his own decision maker. Review of the section: Communication revealed R209 has the following barriers to communication: receptive/expressive deficits . delayed speech. The assessment further revealed The patient is oriented to person, place and situation, with a BIMS score of 14, with the resident listed as cognitively intact. Review of the Arbitration Agreement provided by the facility dated 05/29/23 revealed R209's signature indicating understanding of the arbitration agreement. Further review of the arbitration agreement revealed that there was no signature of a responsible party or guardian. Observation on 05/29/23 at 12:05 PM revealed R209 hit the call light, and when staff responded in the presence of surveyor, R209 stated he was trying to get a ride home. R209 also stated he thought he was already home. During an interview with R209 on 05/31/23 at 8:17 AM, in the presence of the facility's Administrator, R209 stated he did not know what a binding arbitration was. R209 stated he did not recall signing an arbitration agreement two days earlier. The administrator confirmed R209 neither recalled nor understood what binding arbitration was. During an interview with the Admissions Director (AD1) on 05/30/23 at 2:30 PM, she stated she was responsible for having residents sign binding arbitration agreements. The Admissions Director stated she gives an overview of what arbitration is to the residents before they sign, saying that she explains that it is a legal document, and that if they have an issue with the facility, they would be bound by the arbitration agreement to have an arbitrator appointed to them and would sit down and come to an agreement usually outside of court. When asked how she ensures that each resident understood what they were signing, she stated the resident usually said they understood. When asked how the facility ensures that only residents who are cognitively intact sign the arbitration agreement, she stated whoever signs the admission agreement, signs the arbitration agreement because it is part of the admission agreement. When asked if she explained to residents that they have the right to rescind the agreement within a certain number of days of signing, the AD stated no resident had ever told her they changed their mind, and she did not know how many days the resident was given to rescind the agreement. Review of the verbiage in the arbitration agreement provided by the facility revealed the following statement: This arbitration agreement governs important legal rights. Please read the agreement in its entirety before signing. Each party is waiving the right to trial by jury. Disputes must be resolved exclusively through binding arbitration. I acknowledge that my signature below indicates that this agreement has been explained to me and that I understand it.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of facility policy and manufacturer's instructions, the facility failed to ensure staff implemented infection control measures during medicat...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of facility policy and manufacturer's instructions, the facility failed to ensure staff implemented infection control measures during medication pass. Staff failed to sanitize a glucometer before and after use for one (Resident (R) 93) resident during medication administration observation. In addition, staff failed to perform hand hygiene during medication administration. These failures had the potential to create cross contamination and/or spread infection. Findings include: Observation on 05/30/23 at 4:23 PM revealed Registered Nurse (RN)1 took a glucometer from the medication cart. RN1 failed to clean the glucometer and failed to perform hand hygiene before entering R93's room to perform a blood glucose check. RN1 then proceeded to perform a fingerstick blood glucose check without performing hand hygiene or donning gloves. At 4:26 PM, after performing the blood glucose check, RN1 then placed the glucometer back in the medication cart without cleaning the glucometer and without performing hand hygiene. At 4:28 PM, RN1 pulled two insulin pen injections and R93's oral medications from the medication cart and returned to R93's room. At 04:29 PM, RN1 administered R93's oral medications. RN1 then went into R93's bathroom to retrieve a paper towel to clean a spill of medication on R93. RN1 did not perform hand hygiene at this time. At 4:30 PM, RN1 cleaned the injection sites with an alcohol rub and administered both injections to R93 without performing hand hygiene and without donning gloves. RN1 finally performed hand hygiene at 4:31 PM. Interview with RN1 on 05/30/23 at 4:49 PM revealed the glucometer was used on multiple residents who required blood glucose checks. RN1 stated she was aware that the glucometer should be sanitized each time after using it. RN1 confirmed that she had placed the glucometer in the medication cart without first sanitizing the glucometer. When asked how to clean the glucometer, RN1 stated she would use alcohol wipes and proceeded to demonstrate cleaning the glucometer with two alcohol wipes. An interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 05/30/23 at 5:06 PM, as the facility's Infection Preventionist (IP), who worked part-time, was not available. The DON was informed of the observations related to RN1's failure to clean the glucometer, as well as the lack of gloves while performing an injection, and failure to perform hand hygiene when appropriate. The DON confirmed the facility's glucometers were used on multiple residents and that none of the residents in the facility had their own dedicated glucometer. The DON stated it was her expectation that staff sanitize glucometers using the facility's EPA registered cleaning wipes, rather than the alcohol wipe that RN1 demonstrated. The DON also stated that RN1 should have worn gloves to administer injections to the resident and should have performed hand hygiene in between tasks and before entering and exiting the resident's room. Review of the facility policy, Blood Glucose Monitoring, Long-Term Care, revised 11/28/22, revealed The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends refraining from sharing blood glucose meters among residents whenever possible. If one device must be used to monitor several residents, it must be cleaned and disinfected after every use following the manufacturer's instructions to prevent carryover of blood and infectious agents. Single use auto disabling fingerstick devices should also be used to prevent the spread of bloodborne pathogens. Review of the User's Guide for the glucometer (Evencare G3) revealed that, Cleaning and Disinfecting Procedures for the Meter: The Evencare G3 Meter should be cleaned and disinfected between each patient. Further review of the User's Guide for the glucometer revealed it requires an EPA registered disinfectant (which alcohol is not) for cleaning/sanitizing. Review of the facility's policy, titled Hand Hygiene, reviewed 08/19/22, revealed, To protect a patient from health care-associated infection, hand hygiene must be performed routinely and effectively . Using an alcohol-based hand rub is appropriate for decontaminating the hands before direct patient contact; before putting on gloves; before inserting an invasive device; after contact with a patient; when moving from a contaminated body site to a clean body site during patient care; after contact with body fluids, excretions, mucous membranes, non-intact skin, or wound dressings (if hands aren't visibly soiled); after removing gloves; and after contact with inanimate objects in the patient's environment.
Dec 2021 5 deficiencies 2 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations record reviews, interviews, and facility protocols, the facility failed to follow the care plan for the pr...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations record reviews, interviews, and facility protocols, the facility failed to follow the care plan for the prevention of falls for one (1) resident (Resident #57) and for providing showers for one (1) resident (Resident #98). The sample included 25 residents. Resident #57 had 28 falls and the staff did not consistently follow the care plan and the resident sustained two (2) forehead lacerations, one (1) requiring stitches, and one (1) required to be glued closed. Resident #98's was care planned to receive two (2) showers a week and the staff did not provide the showers as planned. Findings include: Review of the facility's protocol titled; Interdisciplinary Care Planning dated 3/2018 revealed the resident's care plan was a communication tool that guided members of the interdisciplinary healthcare team in how to meet each individual resident's needs. It also identified the types and methods of care the resident should receive. The care plan should describe the services the facility was to provide. The Care Plan process included the assessment, planning implementation, and evaluation. 1. Review of Resident #57's clinical record revealed the admission date of 1/7/2020. The diagnoses included: Dementia without Behavioral Disturbance, Cognitive Communication Deficit, Major Depressive Disorder, Disorder of Muscle, and Atrial Fibrillation. Review of Resident #57's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed the resident's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of six (6) with a score of zero to seven (0-7) indicating severe cognitive impairment. The resident displayed inattention and disorganized thinking that fluctuated and did not display behaviors. The MDS documented the resident required supervision with bed mobility, transfers, walking, locomotion, and dressing. The resident required limited assistance with toileting. Resident #57 utilized a walker and a wheelchair and had one (1) fall without injury since the previous assessment. Review of Resident #57's Care Plan in place on 12/31/2020 listed the fall interventions: encourage to transfer and change positions slowly, have commonly used articles within easy reach, assist to transfer and ambulate as needed, anti-roll backs to wheelchair, assist when the resident becomes fatigued, assist with toileting upon rising, at hour of sleep (HS) and before and after meals, encourage and remind him/her to use his/her walker, keep bed at wheelchair height, medication review, offer and assist with toileting, place walker within easy reach, provide and assist with nonskid socks, reinforce need to call for assistance, assist with toileting hygiene, and reinforce wheelchair safety as needed such as locking brakes. Review of the facility provided Timeline, the Fall Investigations, and the Care Plan interventions revealed: 1/30/21 at 7:15 a.m. - staff found the resident on the floor in the bathroom, the resident did not have on socks or shoes on per the care plan. 2/1/21 at 11:15 a.m. - staff found the resident on the floor in his/her bathroom. The resident sustained a Small goose egg to back of head. Staff did not assist the resident to the bathroom as care planned. 2/9/21 at 10:00 a.m. - staff found the resident sitting on the floor between his/her bed and the window. Staff did not assist the resident with transfers and ambulation as care planned. 2/22/21 at 12:05 a.m. - staff heard a loud noise and crying and found the resident on the floor at the foot of the bed, the resident's head was under the bed. Staff did not assist the resident with transfers and ambulation as care planned. 3/2/21 at 6:45 p.m. - staff found the resident sitting on the floor in his/her room. Staff did not assist the resident with transfers and ambulation as care planned. 3/17/21 at 12:30 a.m. - staff found the resident on the floor in his/her room. Staff did not assist the resident with transfers and ambulation as care planned. 3/18/21 at 6:43 a.m. - staff found the resident on the floor in his/her room. Staff did not assist the resident with transfers and ambulation as care planned. 3/26/21 at 5:45 a.m. - staff found the resident on the floor at the foot of the bed. The resident sustained a Crushing skin wound to left forehead. Staff did not assist the resident with transfers and ambulation as care planned. 4/5/21 at 9:30 a.m. - staff found the resident laying on the floor in his/her room. The resident sustained a laceration to the forehead and was sent to the emergency room (ER). 4/6/21 at 3:00 a.m. - staff found the resident on the floor next to his/her bed. The resident sustained a large hematoma on the right side of [his/her] forehead. Staff did not assist the resident with transfers and ambulation as care planned. 4/6/21 at 7:20 a.m. - staff found the resident on the floor next to his/her bed. Resident sustained a hematoma to the posterior right side of the head. Staff did not assist the resident with transfers and ambulation as care planned. 4/15/21 at 5:10 a.m. - staff found the resident on the floor in his/her room. Staff did not assist the resident with transfers and ambulation as care planned. 4/20/21 at 4:14 a.m. - staff heard the resident yelling and found the resident on the floor in his/her room. Staff did not assist the resident with transfers and ambulation as care planned. 4/30/21 at 2:20 a.m. - staff found the resident on the floor between his/her bed and window. Staff did not assist the resident with transfers and ambulation as care planned. 5/3/21 at 2:44 p.m. - staff found the resident on the floor in their room. Staff did not assist the resident with transfers and ambulation as care planned. 5/4/21 at 10:30 a.m. - staff found the resident on the floor next to his/her bed. Staff did not assist the resident with transfers and ambulation as care planned. 5/6/21 at 2:45 a.m. - staff found the resident on the floor next to his/her bed. The resident sustained an abrasion to the forehead. Staff did not assist the resident with transfers and ambulation as care planned. Staff added the intervention for the use of a scoop chair to help with safety. 7/2/21 at 3:30 p.m. - staff heard yelling and found the resident on the floor in his/her room. Staff added the intervention to keep the resident within close observation at the Nurses' Station for safety as he/she would allow during waking hours. Staff did not assist the resident with transfers and ambulation as care planned. 7/4/21 at 5:18 a.m. - staff found the resident on the bathroom floor. Staff did not provide assistance with toileting as planned. 9/14/21 at 1:30 a.m. - staff heard a loud noise and yelling and found the resident on the floor in his/her room. The resident sustained an open laceration to the left temple area in the hair line. Staff transferred the resident to the Emergency (ER). The resident received three (3) sutures. Staff did not assist the resident with transfers and ambulation as care planned. 9/20/21 at 5:50 a.m. - staff found the resident on the floor in the bathroom. The facility did not provide an investigation of this fall. Staff did not assist the resident to the bathroom as care planned. 9/24/21 at 5:45 a.m. - staff found the resident lying on the floor at the foot of his/her bed. Staff did not provide assistance with transfers and ambulation as care planned. 10/5/21 at 6:28 a.m. - staff heard a loud noise then yelling and found the resident on the floor next to his/her bed. The resident sustained a five (5) cm laceration to the mid forehead. The ER closed the laceration with skin glue. Staff did not provide assistance with transfers and ambulation as care planned. 10/19/21 at 2:05 p.m. - Housekeeping Manager found the resident on the bathroom floor. Staff did not assist the resident with toileting as care planned and did not keep the resident at the Nurses' Station as care planned. 11/11/21 at 6:20 a.m. - staff heard a loud noise and crying and found the resident on the floor at the foot of the bed. Staff did not provide assistance with transfers and ambulation as care planned. The Fall Investigations lacked evidence the facility provided the interventions as planned. Observation on 11/30/21 at 11:35 a.m. revealed the resident sat across from the Nurses' Station with an approximate one (1) inch by two (2) inch dark scab on the top/middle section of the forehead. Observation on 12/1/21 at 12:09 p.m. revealed the resident's room door closed. Upon entrance to the room, the resident was sitting on the side of the bed eating his/her lunch. The resident's rollator was on the other side of the overbed table. No staff was present with the resident. Staff did place the resident at the Nurses' Station for close observation for safety, as added to the care plan on 7/2/21. Observation on 12/2/21 at 10:20 a.m. revealed the resident lying in bed on his/her back. The rollator was at the bedside, but no scoop chair was noted in the room. As added to the care plan on 5/6/21. Observation on 12/3/21 at 10:30 a.m. revealed the resident's door opened and upon entering, observation revealed the resident in the bathroom pulling up his/her pants. No staff was with the resident. 2. Review of Resident #98's clinical record documented the diagnoses included: Anxiety Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder, Spastic Hemiplegia, Multiple Sclerosis, Stiff-Man Syndrome, and Diabetes. Review of Resident #98's Care Plan dated 11/2/21 listed the intervention to assist the resident to bathe/shower as needed. Review of Resident #98's [NAME] (identified as the Care Guide for the Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) dated 12/1/21 listed the intervention for staff to shower/bathe the resident Wednesday and Saturday evenings Review or the Shower Documentation provided by the facility for the period of 10/3/21 to 12/2/21 revealed Resident #98 should have received 17 showers but only received sic (6) showers and one (1) documentation that the resident refused a shower. Interview with CNA #16 on 12/2/21 at 10:45 a.m. revealed the facility provided each resident two (2) showers a week, per the [NAME]/Care Guide. Interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #6 on 12/2/21 at 10:46 a.m. revealed the facility's protocol was for the staff to bathe the residents two (2) times a week. Interview with Unit Manager (UM) #17 on 12/2/21 at 11:02 a.m. revealed staff should bathe the residents two (2) times a week.
SERIOUS (G)

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 observations, record reviews, interviews, and review of facility protocol, the facility failed to investigate the causa...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record reviews, interviews, and review of facility protocol, the facility failed to investigate the causative factors of the falls, failed to provide interventions as planned and failed to provide effective interventions for the prevention of falls for one (1) of two (2) residents reviewed for falls. (Resident #57) Resident #57 experienced 28 falls since 1/1/21 resulting in two (2) head lacerations requiring sutures or skin glue to treat. Findings include: Review of the facility protocol titled, Falls Practice Guide dated 12/2011 documented the Falls Practice Guide was an approach that used the nursing process framework: assess, plan, implement and evaluate. The comprehensive care plan was developed to include individualized resident interventions that focused on the resident's risk factors. The approaches for fall interventions were clear, specific, and individualized for the resident's needs. Review of Resident #57's clinical record revealed the admission date of 1/7/2020. The diagnoses included: Dementia without Behavioral Disturbance, Cognitive Communication Deficit, Major Depressive Disorder, Disorder of Muscle, and Atrial Fibrillation. Review of the clinical record revealed the resident had 13 falls from admission on [DATE] to 12/31/2020. Review of Resident #57's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed the resident's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of six (6) with a score of zero to seven (0-7) indicating severe cognitive impairment. The resident displayed inattention and disorganized thinking that fluctuated and did not display behaviors. The MDS documented the resident required supervision with bed mobility, transfers, walking, locomotion and dressing. The resident required limited assistance with toileting. Resident #57 was not steady but able to stabilize without staff assistance with walking and turning around. The resident was not steady and not able to stabilize without staff assistance with moving on and off the toilet, surface with surface transfers and moving from a seated to standing position, Resident #57 utilized a walker and a wheelchair and had one (1) without injury since the previous assessment. The MDS documented the resident did not receive therapy or restorative services. Review of the clinical record revealed Resident #57 had eight (8) falls since the previous assessment completed on 1/3/21 and not the one documented on the MDS dated [DATE]. Review of Resident #57's Care Plan in place on 12/31/2020 listed the fall interventions: encourage to transfer and change positions slowly, have commonly used articles within easy reach assist to transfer and ambulate as needed, anti-roll backs to wheelchair, assist when the resident becomes fatigues, assist with toileting upon rising, at hour of sleep (HS) and before and after meals, encourage and remind him/her to use his/her walker, keep bed at wheelchair height, medication review, offer and assist with toileting, place walker within easy reach, provide and assist with nonskid socks, reinforce need to call for assistance and assist with toileting hygiene, and reinforce wheelchair safety as needed such as locking brakes,. Review of the facility provided Timeline, the Fall Investigations, and the Care Plan listed the following 28 falls with injuries noted and interventions documented since 1/1/21: 1/30/21 at 7:15 a.m. - staff found the resident on the floor in the bathroom, the resident did not have on socks or shoes. 2/1/21 at 11:15 a.m. - staff found the resident on the floor in his/her bathroom. The resident sustained a Small goose egg to back of head. Staff added the intervention to refer to the Nurse Practitioner (NP) for labs and rehab to screen for safety awareness. 2/9/21 at 10:00 a.m. - staff found the resident sitting on the floor between his/her bed and the window. Staff added the intervention to encourage the use of the wheelchair. 2/22/21 at 12:05 a.m. - staff heard a loud noise and crying and found the resident on the floor at the foot of the bed, the resident's head was under the bed. The resident sustained an abrasion to the nose from his/her glasses. 3/2/21 at 6:45 p.m. - staff found the resident sitting on the floor in his/her room. The resident sustained a small hematoma to the right side of the forehead. Staff added the intervention to encourage the resident to allow staff to monitor for safety. 3/17/21 at 12:30 a.m. - staff found the resident on the floor in his/her room. 3/18/21 at 6:43 a.m. - staff found the resident on the floor in his/her room. Staff added the intervention to administer medications per Physician's Orders. 3/26/21 at 5:45 a.m. - staff found the resident on the floor at the foot of the bed. The resident sustained a Crushing skin wound to left forehead. The area was bleeding and staff applied a dry dressing. Staff added the intervention for a night light to brighten the room and rehab to screen for knee weakness. 4/5/21 at 9:30 a.m. - staff found the resident laying on the floor in his/her room. Staff documented that at 9:20 a.m. the resident was sitting on the side of the bed eating breakfast. The resident sustained a laceration to the forehead and was sent to the emergency room (ER). Staff added the intervention for Pharmacy to assist with medication review (which they do monthly). 4/6/21 at 3:00 a.m. - staff found the resident on the floor next to his/her bed. The resident sustained a large hematoma on the right side of [his/her] forehead. 4/6/21 at 7:20 a.m. - staff found the resident on the floor next to his/her bed. Resident sustained a hematoma to the posterior right side of the head. Staff added the intervention for pillows to define borders of the bed. 4/15/21 at 5:10 a.m. - staff found the resident on the floor in his/her room. Staff added the intervention for a medication review for a supplement for increased risk and history of urinary tract infections (UTI) and refer to therapy plan of treatment for more detail. 4/20/21 at 4:14 a.m. - staff heard the resident yelling and found the resident on the floor in his/her room. Staff added the intervention to check the resident's orthostatic blood pressures to determine irregularities. 4/30/21 at 2:20 a.m. - staff found the resident on the floor between his/her bed and window. 5/3/21 at 2:44 p.m. - staff found the resident on the floor in their room. There was no Nurse's Note or Investigation of this fall, only listed on the Timeline the facility provided. 5/4/21 at 10:30 a.m. - staff found the resident on the floor next to his/her bed. The resident was calling out for help. Staff added the intervention for Physical Therapy (PT) to screen for balance issues. The facility did not provide an investigation of this fall. 5/6/21 at 2:45 a.m. - staff found the resident on the floor next to his/her bed. The resident sustained an abrasion to the forehead. The facility did not provide an investigation of this fall. 5/6/21 at 9:30 a.m. - resident was sitting in his/her locked wheelchair, leaned over to pick up a piece of paper and fell out of his/her wheelchair. Staff added the intervention to elevate the head of bed as tolerated and to encourage use of a scoop chair (low to the ground chair that tilted) as tolerated. The facility did not provide an investigation of this fall. 5/7/21 at 10:30 a.m. - staff found the resident on the floor in his/her room. The resident stated he/she rolled out of bed. Staff added the intervention for the Physician to review the resident's medication and move to a room closer to the Nurses' Station. The facility did not provide an investigation of this fall. Review of the Physician's orders revealed an order dated 5/5/21 for PT and Occupational Therapy (OT) secondary to frequent falls. Review of Resident #57's Rehabilitation Screening dated 5/13/21 documented the resident may benefit from skilled therapy services. Review of the clinical record and therapy provided documentation lacked evidence the resident received the therapy services. 7/2/21 at 3:30 p.m. - staff heard yelling and found the resident on the floor in his/her room. Staff added the intervention to keep the resident within close observation at the Nurses' Station for safety as he/she would allow during waking hours and a low bed. The facility did not provide an investigation of this fall. 7/4/21 at 5:18 a.m. - staff found the resident on the bathroom floor. Staff again added the intervention to toilet the resident upon rising, before and after meals and at HS as he/she will tolerate. The facility did not provide an investigation of this fall. 9/14/21 at 1:30 a.m. - staff heard a loud noise and yelling and found the resident on the floor in his/her room. The resident sustained an open laceration to the left temple area in the hair line. Staff transferred the resident to the Emergency (ER). Staff again added the intervention for the Physician to review the resident's medications. The resident received three (3) sutures. The facility did not provide an investigation of this fall. 9/16/21 at 10:40 p.m. - staff found the resident on the floor in his/her room. The resident stated, This bed is not big enough for my boyfriend and me. Staff added the intervention for lab work related to hallucinations. The facility did not provide an investigation of this fall. 9/20/21 at 5:50 a.m. - staff found the resident on the floor in the bathroom. The facility did not provide an investigation of this fall. 9/24/21 at 5:45 a.m. - staff found the resident lying on the floor at the foot of his/her bed. Staff added the intervention to attempt the use of a hand bell. 10/5/21 at 6:28 a.m. - staff heard a loud noise then yelling and found the resident on the floor next to his/her bed. The resident sustained a five (5) cm laceration to the mid forehead. Staff transferred the resident to the ER. Staff added the intervention to set up a care plan meeting with the provider and Interdisciplinary team (IDT). The ER closed the laceration with skin glue. 10/19/21 at 2:05 p.m. - Housekeeping Manager found the resident on the bathroom floor. The resident stated, [name] was just talking to me . Staff added the intervention for a protective helmet as the resident would allow. 11/11/21 at 6:20 a.m. - staff heard a loud noise and crying and found the resident on the floor at the foot of the bed. Bleeding from crack in scab at top of forehead that [he/she] received from previous fall. Staff added the intervention for therapy to evaluate for knee buckling. Review of the falls lacked consistent investigations of the falls, lacked consistent determination of the causative factor for the falls and lacked interventions based on the causative factors. The Fall Investigations lacked evidence the facility provided the interventions as planned. Observation on 11/30/21 at 11:35 a.m. revealed the resident sat across from the Nurses' Station with an approximate one (1) inch by two (2) inch dark scab on the top/middle section of the forehead. Observation on 12/1/21 at 12:09 p.m. revealed the resident's room door closed. Upon entrance to the room the resident was sitting on the side of bed eating his/her lunch. The resident's rollator was on the other side of the overbed table. No staff were present with the resident. Staff did place the resident at the Nurses' Station for close observation for safety, as added to the care plan on 7/2/21. Observation on 12/2/21 at 10:20 a.m. revealed the resident lying in bed on his/her back. The rollator was at the bedside, but no scoop chair noted in the room, as added to the care plan on 5/6/21. Observation on 12/3/21 at 10:30 a.m. revealed the resident's door opened and upon entering, observation revealed the resident in the bathroom pulling up his/her pants. No staff were with the resident. Interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #6 on 11/30/21 at 11:35 revealed the wound/abrasion to the top of the resident's head was due to a fall. Interview with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #16 on 12/2/21 at 10:45 a.m. revealed for the prevention of falls, the staff keep a good eye on the resident. CNA #16 stated the resident was continent and wore pull-ups and was able to do his/her own toileting. CNA #16 was asked about the use of the scoop chair and where it was located. After looking, CNA #16 found the scoop chair in the locked shower room. Interview with LPN #6 on 12/2/21 at 10:46 a.m. revealed, if a fall occurred the nurse completed an assessment of the resident, notified all parties, obtained witness statements, and documented the fall on the 24-hour report. The Fall Team reviewed all the falls. The nurse tried to put an intervention in place right after the fall. LPN #6 stated Resident #57 fell due to confusion, age, was able to ambulate, and the resident felt they could walk. LPN #6 stated the fall interventions included: encourage the resident to use the walker, encourage the resident to call us prior to transferring him/herself, monitor the resident's whereabouts frequently. LPN #6 stated there was no set timeframe for the frequency of monitoring. LPN #6 stated the staff should open the resident's room door to lay eyes on the resident. LPN #6 stated the resident toileted him/herself. Interview with Unit Manager (UM) #17 on 12/2/21 at 11:02 a.m. revealed after a resident fell the nurse working the unit would fill out the Incident Management with a detailed report of what happened, including items like the bed height. The nurse would also get witnessed statements. UM #17 stated if the resident was at risk for falls, we would just monitor them as they have the right to fall. The nurse working can add an intervention to prevent further falls. The facility does not have a real fall program. The facility discussed all falls at the morning meetings which included the Administrator, UMs, Director of Nursing (DON), Therapy, Dietary, maintenance, housekeeping, MDS Coordinator, Social Worker and Discharge Planner. UM #17 stated Resident #57 fell due to being [AGE] years old, demented and wanted to go back to Connecticut. The facility had tried a helmet, but the resident could not wear it due to the wound on his/her head. We have also tried a knee brace, pain gel for his/her knee, a night light and frequent checks. When asked how frequently the staff should check on Resident #57, UM #17 said at least every hour. Interview with the Rehab Director on 12/2/21 at 11:25 a.m. revealed Resident #57's left knee buckled at times. He/she stated therapy had ordered a knee sleeve for the resident, but it had not come in yet. Interview with the DON on 12/2/21 at 1:29 p.m. revealed when a resident fell the nurse on the floor completed an incident report and notified the physician and family. The nurse should put an intervention in place immediately. During the morning meetings the clinical staff discuss all the falls that occurred since the previous meeting. The clinical staff consisted of the DON, UMs, MDS Coordinator, Administrator, Dietitian, Therapy, and Activity staff. During the meeting we would review the fall, including what happened and what cause the fall and the interventions in place. Resident #57 was admitted due to him/her falling at home. The DON stated Resident #57's causes for his/her falls was he/she did not remember things, the resident thought they could do for him/herself and the resident toileted him/herself. For Resident #57's fall interventions we brought in his/her family. The family stated the resident would have UTIs that caused him/her to fall but we checked, and the resident did not have a UTI. Interview with the Administrator on 12/3/21 at 10:00 a.m., he/she knew the facility had completed the investigations for all of Resident #57's falls but was unable to find them per their protocol to review the circumstances surrounding a resident's fall. Interview with the Rehab Director on 12/3/21 at 10:15 a.m. regarding the 5/13/21 Rehab Screen indicating the resident may benefit from skilled therapy, stated due to the resident's insurance the request for therapy would have been e-mailed to the Business Office to follow up on but those e-mails were automatically deleted after four (4) months. The Rehab Director further stated if the resident was added to the PT schedule, those schedules were deleted after five (5) months. The Rehab Director stated he/she did not know why the resident was not picked up for therapy.
CONCERN (D)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to complete accurate Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessments for two (2) ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to complete accurate Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessments for two (2) residents (Resident #57 and Resident #68). The sample included 25 residents. Not conducting an accurate assessment can cause the facility to not develop an accurate plan of care for the residents. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #57's clinical revealed the admission date of 1/7/2020 and the diagnoses included: Dementia without Behavioral Disturbance, Cognitive Communication Deficit, Disorder of Muscle, and Atrial Fibrillation. Review of Resident #57's MDS Assessments revealed an Annual MDS completed on 1/3/21. Review of the Quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed the resident had one (1) no injury fall since the MDS assessment was completed on 1/3/21. Review of Resident #57's clinical record revealed the resident had eight (8) falls from 1/3/21 to 4/4/21, revealing staff did not complete an accurate MDS assessment on 4/4/21. Interview with the MDS Coordinator on 12/3/21 at 10:26 a.m. revealed when completing the fall section of the MDS, he/she looked in the electronic record to see if the resident had fallen, how many times, and if an injury was sustained. The MDS coordinator stated he/she did not know why the assessment was coded wrong. 2. Review of Resident #68's clinical record revealed an admission date of 7/1/21. The diagnoses included: Dementia with Lewy Bodies; Parkinson's Disease; and Unsteadiness on Feet. Review of Resident #68's admission MDS assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #68 had no pressure ulcers on admission. Review of the Incident Report - Patient Involved dated 9/9/21 at 4:04 p.m. revealed the staff found an unstageable pressure ulcer to Resident #68's left inner heel. Review of the End of Part A Stay MDS dated [DATE] revealed Resident #68 had two (2) unstageable pressure ulcers, and both were present on admission. Review of the Significant Change MDS dated [DATE] revealed Resident #68 had two (2) unstageable Pressure Ulcers, and both were present on admission. Interview with the MDS Coordinator on 12/2/21 at 11:40 a.m. revealed when he/she completed the MDS Assessment, he/she met and talked with the resident, reviewed the History and Physical, Discharge Summary, and other parts of the clinical record. The MDS Coordinator confirmed Resident #68 did not come in with the pressure ulcers and did not know why he/she documented the resident came to the facility with the two (2) unstageable pressure ulcers.
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 interview, record review and review of facility procedure, it was determined the facility failed to provide the necessa...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review and review of facility procedure, it was determined the facility failed to provide the necessary services to maintain good grooming and personal hygiene for one (1) of 25 residents. Residents #98 required staff assistance with bathing/showering and were scheduled to receive the services two times each week. Baths/showers were not provided as scheduled and interviews revealed the resident was not receiving the required assistance. Findings include: Review of a nursing procedure titled Bathing revised 7/2016 revealed the purpose was to cleanse skin and promote circulation. The document indicated there were two (2) types of baths, a bed bath and a shower or tub bath. Procedures included staff verifying with the resident their bath preference and schedule. Procedures for staff to implement when residents required assistance with a tub bath or shower were outlined. Review of Resident #98's clinical record revealed an admission date of 7/11/14 and the diagnoses included: Anxiety Disorder; Major Depressive Disorder; Spastic Hemiplegia; Multiple Sclerosis; Stiff-Man Syndrome; and Diabetes. Review of Resident #98's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15 indicating intact cognition and displayed no behaviors. Resident #98 required total assistance of one (1) staff with bathing. Review of Resident #98's Care Plan dated 11/2/21 listed the intervention to assist the resident to bathe/shower as needed. Review of Resident #98's [NAME] (identified as the Care Guide for the Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) dated 12/1/21 listed the intervention for staff to shower/bathe the resident on Wednesday and Saturday evenings. Interview with Resident #98 on 11/30/21 at 9:16 a.m. revealed the staff were not providing him/her with showers two (2) a week. Review of the Shower Documentation provided by the facility for the period of 10/3/21 to 12/2/21 revealed Resident #98 should have received 17 showers but only received six (6) showers. Interview with CNA #16 on 12/2/21 at 10:45 a.m. revealed each resident should receive two (2) showers a week. Interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #6 on 12/2/21 at 10:46 a.m. revealed the facility's protocol was for the residents to be bathed two (2) times a week. Resident #98's unit did not have a bathtub, so the staff provided showers. Interview was conducted on 12/3/21 at 10:40 a.m. with CNA #14 who provided services on the unit where Resident #98 resided. The CNA stated residents who were supposed to receive assistance with showers were not always provided a shower. CNA #14 stated residents who were supposed to receive assistance with showers on second shift did not always get a shower. The CNA stated residents should be getting showers just like you and me when scheduled but it wasn't always happening. Interview was conducted on 12/3/21 at 10:50 a.m. with CNA #15 who worked on first shift and provided services on the unit where Resident #98 resided. CNA #15 stated residents scheduled for showers on second shift frequently did not get their showers.
CONCERN (E)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure appropriate transmissio...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure appropriate transmission-based precautions were implemented for one (1) of 25 sampled residents (Resident #160). The facility failed to ensure Resident #160, newly admitted with no record of receipt of COVID-19 vaccination, was placed in isolation and contact/droplet precautions protocol was implemented. There was no signage on the resident's door and staff were observed to enter and exit the resident's room and failed to wear personal equipment (PPE) in accordance with transmission-based precautions protocol. Findings include: Review of facility Practice Guidelines dated 7/2/21 revealed guidelines to address Airborne Precautions that outlined requirements for staff to follow to include keeping a resident's door closed and keeping the resident in the room while on precautions. Staff should wear a N95 fitted disposable mask when entering the room. The Practice Guidelines further outlined procedures to be used for Droplet Precautions. Staff were to wear gloves, mask, and goggles when within six (6) feet of the resident. A resident under droplet precautions should be in a private room or cohort with other residents with same active infection. For COVID-19 and some respiratory illnesses with the potential for aerosolization, it may be appropriate to keep the door closed. Review of a document titled Covid-19 admission Criteria dated 3/18/21 revealed a flowchart that outlined the paths to follow for all newly admitted residents. The flowchart specified for all new resident admissions who were not 14 days post-completion of full vaccination series (COVID-19) and not (or unknown) tested for COVID, the resident was to be admitted to a private room in transmission-based (airborne-droplet) precautions for 10 days. Conduct COVID-19 testing on the 5th, 6th, or 7th, day. If the resident tests negative and remains asymptomatic they can be removed from isolation on the 8th day. Resident #160 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Admitting diagnoses included Perforated Diverticulitis, Disorder of Muscle, and Cognitive Communication Deficit. Review of the medical record revealed a Nurse's Progress Note dated 11/24/21 that specified Resident #160 was currently in Airborne Respiratory Isolation. Review of a Nurse's Progress Note dated 11/25/21 at 5:18 a.m. revealed Resident #160 was noted to currently be in Airborne Respiratory Isolation. A Nursing Progress Note documented on 11/25/21 at 3:02 p.m. stated the resident was moved from room [ROOM NUMBER]-B to room [ROOM NUMBER]-A due to the heat not working. A Nurse's Progress Note documented on 11/25/21 at 10:56 p.m., after the room change, revealed Resident #160 was not in Airborne Respiratory Isolation. A review of Nurses' Notes documented for 11/26/21, 11/27/21, 11/28/21, 11/29/21, 11/30/21 and 12/1/21, 12/22/21 revealed on each date the nursing staff had documented Resident #160 was not in Airborne Respiratory Isolation. Continued review of progress notes revealed the Nurse Practitioner (NP) had documented on 12/2/21 at 10:49 a.m. Pt. (resident) has no signs/symptoms of COVID and has been tested. It is okay to take Pt. off isolation. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #160 had a physician's order dated 12/2/21 for the facility to obtain a COVID-19 test. Review of the resident's physician's orders since admission revealed this was the first ordered COVID-19 test for the resident. Review of the medical record revealed no evidence Resident #160 had received a COVID-19 vaccination prior to or after admission. Continued review of the physician's orders revealed on 11/24/21 an order was given for Resident #160 to be on airborne/droplet precautions for 14 days. Observation of Resident #160 on 11/30/21 at approximately 10:33 a.m. revealed the resident was lying on his/her back in bed. The resident appeared to be alert and oriented and responded appropriately to verbal stimuli. The door to the resident's room was open and there was no signage on the resident's door to indicate Resident #160 was under contact precautions. Resident #160 was observed on 12/2/21 at 9:46 a.m. to be lying on his/her back in bed. The resident stated s/he did remember being in a different room before moving into the room s/he currently resided in. The resident stated s/he was not sure if s/he had received a COVID vaccination prior to admission. The door to Resident #160's room was observed to be open and there was no signage on the doorway to indicate the resident was under contact precautions. Interview was conducted on 12/2/21 at 10:00 a.m. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #4, who was assigned to provide care for Resident #160. LPN #4 stated s/he had noticed the airborne/droplet precautions signage had been added to the resident's doorway the previous afternoon. LPN #4 stated the Director of Nursing (DON) had come through that morning and told the LPN to take down the signage because the doctor had taken Resident #160 off precautions. LPN #4 further stated s/he was aware the resident had tested negative for COVID that morning. LPN #4 stated, however, prior to yesterday (12/1/21) Resident #160 had not been under precautions. The LPN stated staff had been entering the resident's room to provide care without donning/doffing full PPE as required when a resident was under Transmission-based Precautions. Interview was conducted on 12/2/21 at 11:40 a.m. with the Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #7 who was assigned to provide care for Resident #160. CNA #7 stated Resident #160 would get in a wheelchair and propel him/herself down the hallway. CNA #7 stated the resident was not on any contact precautions. The CNA stated s/he was not aware of the resident being on precautions since residing on the hallway. Interview was conducted on 12/2/21 at 10:05 a.m. with the DON. The DON stated Resident #160 had tested negative for COVID earlier that morning. The DON had asked the resident about a previous COVID vaccination, but the resident could not remember. The resident's family member was then contacted but reported not knowing the resident's vaccination status. The DON stated s/he did recognize the facility had failed to follow the resident with the signage for airborne/droplet precautions when the resident was moved to his/her current room. The heating unit had quit working in the room Resident #160 was first in. The resident was under precautions prior to being moved, however, after being moved to another room, the facility had failed to identify the need for isolation. The DON acknowledged that due to this failure, staff had entered/exited the room, provided direct care to the resident, without using PPE required to be worn for airborne/droplet precautions. The DON further stated s/he was aware when Resident #160 was first admitted , the physician had ordered the facility to place the resident on a 14 day precaution isolation and the facility had failed to follow the order. Interview was conducted on 12/2/21 at 10:34 a.m. with the Nurse Practitioner (NP). The NP stated s/he had been made aware yesterday (12/1/21) that the physician's order for 14 day isolation had not been followed for Resident #160. The NP stated s/he had then ordered the facility to obtain a COVID test. The NP had been informed the morning of 12/2/21 that the resident had tested negative for COVID. The NP stated an order had been given this morning for Resident #160 to be taken off precautions after receiving the negative test results. The NP stated the facility should have placed Resident #160 in the physician ordered isolation.
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
  • • 41% turnover. Below South Carolina's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • 8 deficiencies on record, including 2 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
  • • $38,389 in fines. Higher than 94% of South Carolina facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
Bottom line: Generally positive indicators. Standard due diligence and a personal visit recommended.

About This Facility

What is Heartland Health Care Center - Greenville East's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns Heartland Health Care Center - Greenville East an overall rating of 5 out of 5 stars, which is considered much above average nationally. Within South Carolina, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.

How is Heartland Health Care Center - Greenville East Staffed?

CMS rates Heartland Health Care Center - Greenville East's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 41%, compared to the South Carolina average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Heartland Health Care Center - Greenville East?

State health inspectors documented 8 deficiencies at Heartland Health Care Center - Greenville East during 2021 to 2025. These included: 2 that caused actual resident harm and 6 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Heartland Health Care Center - Greenville East?

Heartland Health Care Center - Greenville East 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 PACS GROUP, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 132 certified beds and approximately 126 residents (about 95% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in Greenville, South Carolina.

How Does Heartland Health Care Center - Greenville East Compare to Other South Carolina Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in South Carolina, Heartland Health Care Center - Greenville East's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 2.9, staff turnover (41%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Heartland Health Care Center - Greenville East?

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 Heartland Health Care Center - Greenville East Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, Heartland Health Care Center - Greenville East 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 5-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 Heartland Health Care Center - Greenville East Stick Around?

Heartland Health Care Center - Greenville East has a staff turnover rate of 41%, which is about average for South Carolina nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was Heartland Health Care Center - Greenville East Ever Fined?

Heartland Health Care Center - Greenville East has been fined $38,389 across 1 penalty action. The South Carolina average is $33,463. 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 Heartland Health Care Center - Greenville East on Any Federal Watch List?

Heartland Health Care Center - Greenville East 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.