Southpointe Healthcare and Rehabiliation
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Southpointe Healthcare and Rehabilitation has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about their care quality. Ranking #137 out of 186 facilities in South Carolina places them in the bottom half, and #17 out of 19 in Greenville County suggests that only one nearby option is better. The facility has a trend of improving, having reduced issues from three in 2024 to none in 2025. However, staffing is a weakness, with a rating of 2 out of 5 stars and a concerning turnover rate of 58%, well above the state average of 46%. Additionally, they incurred $25,603 in fines, which is higher than 75% of other facilities in South Carolina, indicating recurring compliance issues. There are serious concerns about safety, including incidents where oxygen cylinders were not stored properly and a case of mental abuse involving staff members recording a resident against their will. Overall, while there are some improvements, the facility has significant weaknesses that families should consider carefully.
- Trust Score
- F
- In South Carolina
- #137/186
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 58% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ⚠ Watch
- $25,603 in fines. Higher than 79% of South Carolina facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 15 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for South Carolina. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 25 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in fire safety.
The Bad
Below South Carolina average (2.8)
Below average - review inspection findings carefully
12pts above South Carolina avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Below median ($33,413)
Moderate penalties - review what triggered them
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
10 points above South Carolina average of 48%
The Ugly 25 deficiencies on record
Sept 2024
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, interviews, facility policy and the Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Me...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2024
1 deficiency
1 IJ
CRITICAL
(J)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of facility policy, record review, interviews, and review of video footage, the facility failed to protect Resid...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2024
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0692
(Tag F0692)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and review of facility's weight policy, titled Weighing the Resident, the facility failed to provide documentation that Resident (R)1 had a 5 % or more weight loss with reviews ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2023
11 deficiencies
1 IJ (1 affecting multiple)
CRITICAL
(K)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Additional findings include
A review of a facility policy titled, Safety and Health Policies and Procedures, dated 11/01/2018, i...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on review of the facility policy, observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to maintain a resident's dignity during meal service for 1 (Resident (R)40) of 6 residents revi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive person-centered c...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on review of facility policy, record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure Resident (R)13 was provided care and services daily related to bathing for 1 of 3 residents reviewed fo...
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 review of facility policy, observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure blood glucose was monitored while a resident was prescribed insulin for 1 resident (R69) out...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0698
(Tag F0698)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review the facility failed to ensure ongoing communication, assessment of the resident's conditio...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
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 monitor for behaviors and adverse effects for 1 of 5 residents revi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Unnecessary Medications
(Tag F0759)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on review of the facility policy, the package insert for Flonase, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate, during med pass, less than five (5) percent...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0760
(Tag F0760)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on review of the facility policy, observations, and interviews, the faciliy failed to ensure Resident (R)90, R21 and R46 were free from significant medication errors during medication administra...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, observation, and record review the facility failed to ensure that 1 Resident (R)69 out 3 residents dressings...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the facility policy titled, Medication Storage, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure 1...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2023
2 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews, facility policy review and interviews, the facility failed to report a major accident/incident involvin...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Investigate Abuse
(Tag F0610)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews, facility policy review and interviews, the facility failed to investigate a major accident/incident for...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2021
9 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
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 policy, the facility failed to treat a resident with dignity, includin...
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 interview, record review, review of facility policy, and review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) manual, the facility failed to assure that Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments accur...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0655
(Tag F0655)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to develop a baseline care plan within 48 hou...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0688
(Tag F0688)
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 provide treatment to further prevent decrease in rang...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0810
(Tag F0810)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to provide a needed assistive...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Assessments
(Tag F0636)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, facility policy review, and review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual, the fa...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to maintain and implement an eff...
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 observation, interview, and review of facility policies, the facility failed to prepare food under sanitary conditions. Specifically, equipment was found to have paper and food remnants on it...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Staffing Information
(Tag F0732)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure staffing information was posted in a prominent place that was readily accessible for residents and visitor...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
- "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
- • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 2 life-threatening violation(s), $25,603 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 25 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $25,603 in fines. Higher than 94% of South Carolina facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
- • Grade F (16/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Southpointe Healthcare And Rehabiliation's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns Southpointe Healthcare and Rehabiliation an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered below average nationally. Within South Carolina, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.
How is Southpointe Healthcare And Rehabiliation Staffed?
CMS rates Southpointe Healthcare and Rehabiliation's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 58%, which is 12 percentage points above the South Carolina average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs.
What Have Inspectors Found at Southpointe Healthcare And Rehabiliation?
State health inspectors documented 25 deficiencies at Southpointe Healthcare and Rehabiliation during 2021 to 2024. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 22 with potential for harm, and 1 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.
Who Owns and Operates Southpointe Healthcare And Rehabiliation?
Southpointe Healthcare and Rehabiliation 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 FUNDAMENTAL HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 120 certified beds and approximately 111 residents (about 92% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in Greenville, South Carolina.
How Does Southpointe Healthcare And Rehabiliation Compare to Other South Carolina Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in South Carolina, Southpointe Healthcare and Rehabiliation's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (58%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Southpointe Healthcare And Rehabiliation?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations, the facility's high staff turnover rate, and the below-average staffing rating.
Is Southpointe Healthcare And Rehabiliation Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, Southpointe Healthcare and Rehabiliation has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 2-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in South Carolina. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.
Do Nurses at Southpointe Healthcare And Rehabiliation Stick Around?
Staff turnover at Southpointe Healthcare and Rehabiliation is high. At 58%, the facility is 12 percentage points above the South Carolina average of 46%. 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 Southpointe Healthcare And Rehabiliation Ever Fined?
Southpointe Healthcare and Rehabiliation has been fined $25,603 across 2 penalty actions. This is below the South Carolina average of $33,335. 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 Southpointe Healthcare And Rehabiliation on Any Federal Watch List?
Southpointe Healthcare and Rehabiliation 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.