Lake Emory Post Acute Care
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Lake Emory Post Acute Care has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns regarding the quality of care provided. Ranked #152 out of 186 facilities in South Carolina and #11 out of 15 in Spartanburg County, this places them in the bottom half of all facilities in the state and among local options. Although the facility has shown some improvement in recent inspections, dropping from 4 issues in 2024 to 1 in 2025, the overall trend remains troubling with 18 total issues cited, including critical incidents of neglect that led to two residents successfully eloping from the facility. Staffing is a major concern, with a low rating of 1 out of 5 stars and a turnover rate of 69%, significantly above the state average, meaning many staff do not stay long enough to build strong relationships with residents. Additionally, there are fewer registered nurses on staff than 97% of other facilities in South Carolina, raising concerns about oversight and care quality.
- Trust Score
- F
- In South Carolina
- #152/186
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 69% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ○ Average
- $13,627 in fines. Higher than 63% of South Carolina facilities. Some compliance issues.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 12 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for South Carolina. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 18 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)
Significant quality concerns identified by CMS
23pts above South Carolina avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
21 points above South Carolina average of 48%
The Ugly 18 deficiencies on record
Apr 2025
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
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview, record review, facility document review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to timely report a resident-to-resident abuse allegation to the State Agency for 1 (Residen...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2024
3 deficiencies
2 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 interview, record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure Residents (R)2 and R3 were free ...
Read full inspector narrative →
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
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, record review and review of facility policy, the facility failed to provide appropriate supervision to prev...
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
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 review of facility policy, record review, and interview, the facility failed to notify the responsible party for Reside...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2024
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 observations, interviews, and a review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure foods stored in the refrigerator, and nourishment kitchen were free from expiration. This failure had ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2023
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
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
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 ensure Resident (R)6 was treated with dignity by fail...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2023
5 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0638
(Tag F0638)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the Resident Assessment Instrument Manual, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to complete a q...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0645
(Tag F0645)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the facility policy, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to follow the Preadmission Screening ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
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 facility policy review, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to a ensure an end date was added to an as n...
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 review of facility policy, record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure that intravenous (IV, medication given through the vein) fluids administered were labeled w...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on review of the facility's policy, observations, and interview, the facility failed to ensure the processing of clean and dirty laundry was separated in the laundry room; and failed to ensure a...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2021
7 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0576
(Tag F0576)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide residents with regular post on Saturdays for 1 of 1 facility reviewed. The resident council voiced concerns that mail was not deliv...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure an anti-rollback device installed on the wheelchair for 1 of...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0604
(Tag F0604)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record reviews, interviews, and facility policy, the facility failed to complete a restraint assessment a...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Transfer Requirements
(Tag F0622)
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 complete and provide the required transfer documents to the receiv...
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, record reviews, interviews, and a review of the facility's policy and procedure, the facility failed to f...
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 observation, interview and review of facility policy. The facility failed to keep medication storage areas free of expired medications in 1 of 4 medication carts observed during the survey. M...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, interviews, and facility policies, the facility failed to ensure proper food storage and k...
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?"
- "What safeguards are in place to prevent abuse and neglect?"
- "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: Federal abuse finding, 2 life-threatening violation(s), Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 18 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $13,627 in fines. Above average for South Carolina. Some compliance problems on record.
- • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Lake Emory Post Acute Care's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns Lake Emory Post Acute Care an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much 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 Lake Emory Post Acute Care Staffed?
CMS rates Lake Emory Post Acute Care's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 69%, which is 23 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 73%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.
What Have Inspectors Found at Lake Emory Post Acute Care?
State health inspectors documented 18 deficiencies at Lake Emory Post Acute Care during 2021 to 2025. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 16 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.
Who Owns and Operates Lake Emory Post Acute Care?
Lake Emory Post Acute Care 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 88 certified beds and approximately 83 residents (about 94% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in Inman, South Carolina.
How Does Lake Emory Post Acute Care Compare to Other South Carolina Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in South Carolina, Lake Emory Post Acute Care's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (69%) 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 Lake Emory Post Acute Care?
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?" "What safeguards and monitoring systems are in place to protect residents from abuse or neglect?" "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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations, the substantiated abuse finding on record, the facility's high staff turnover rate, and the below-average staffing rating.
Is Lake Emory Post Acute Care Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, Lake Emory Post Acute Care has documented safety concerns. The facility has 1 substantiated abuse finding (meaning confirmed case of resident harm by staff or other residents). Inspectors have issued 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 1-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 Lake Emory Post Acute Care Stick Around?
Staff turnover at Lake Emory Post Acute Care is high. At 69%, the facility is 23 percentage points above the South Carolina average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 73%. 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 Lake Emory Post Acute Care Ever Fined?
Lake Emory Post Acute Care has been fined $13,627 across 2 penalty actions. This is below the South Carolina average of $33,215. 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 Lake Emory Post Acute Care on Any Federal Watch List?
Lake Emory Post Acute Care 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.