Martha Franks Baptist Retirement Center

One Martha Franks Drive, Laurens, SC 29360 (864) 984-4541
Non profit - Corporation 88 Beds Independent Data: November 2025 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
21/100
#122 of 186 in SC
Last Inspection: August 2024

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

Overview

Martha Franks Baptist Retirement Center has a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided, which is poor compared to other facilities. It ranks #122 of 186 in South Carolina, placing it in the bottom half of nursing homes in the state, and #3 of 4 in Laurens County, meaning only one local option is rated lower. The facility's trend is worsening, with the number of issues rising from 3 in 2023 to 5 in 2024. Staffing is a strength with a rating of 4 out of 5 stars and a turnover rate of 41%, which is below the state average, suggesting that staff remain long enough to build relationships with residents. However, the facility has concerning fines totaling $84,708, which are higher than 95% of South Carolina facilities, indicating potential compliance issues. Specific incidents include critical failures to protect residents from sexual abuse, where one resident was inappropriately touched multiple times despite staff awareness, and the facility's failure to report these allegations to state health authorities. Additionally, there were concerns about kitchen cleanliness and food safety, including debris on the floor and expired food items not being discarded, which could affect all residents receiving meals from that kitchen. Overall, while there are strengths in staffing, serious safety and compliance issues need to be addressed.

Trust Score
F
21/100
In South Carolina
#122/186
Bottom 35%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
3 → 5 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
41% turnover. Near South Carolina's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
⚠ Watch
$84,708 in fines. Higher than 75% of South Carolina facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 34 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for South Carolina. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
⚠ Watch
14 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 3 issues
2024: 5 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
  • 4-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 staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

2-Star Overall Rating

Below South Carolina average (2.8)

Below average - review inspection findings carefully

Staff Turnover: 41%

Near South Carolina avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Federal Fines: $84,708

Well above median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

The Ugly 14 deficiencies on record

2 life-threatening
Aug 2024 5 deficiencies
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 observation, interview, record review, review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, record review, review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment accurately reflected the status for 1 (Resident (R)31) of 22 sampled residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure R31's MDS accurately reflected the resident's fall status. Findings included: A facility policy titled, Resident Assessments, revised 03/2022, revealed 1. The resident assessment coordinator is responsible for ensuring that the interdisciplinary team conducts timely and appropriate resident assessments and reviews according to the following requirements: a. OBRA required assessments - conducted for all residents in the facility. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument [RAI] 3.0 User's Manual, dated 10/2023, indicated that according to 2. If this is not the first assessment, the review period is from the day after the ARD [Assessment Reference Date] of the last MDS assessment to the ARD of the current assessment. 3. Review all available sources for any fall since the last assessment, no matter whether it occurred while out in the community, in an acute hospital, or in the nursing home. Include medical records generated in any health care setting since last assessment. All relevant records received from acute and post-acute facilities where the resident was admitted during the look-back period should be reviewed for evidence of one or more falls. 4. Review nursing home incident reports and medical record (physician, nursing, therapy, and nursing assistant notes) for falls and level of injury. 5. Ask the resident, staff, and family about falls during the look-back period. Resident and family reports of falls should be captured here, whether or not these incidents are documented in the medical record. A Resident Face Sheet indicated the facility admitted R31 on 08/16/2021. According to the Resident Face Sheet, the resident had a medical history that included diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease, muscle weakness, and lack of coordination. A quarterly MDS, with an ARD of 05/24/2024, revealed R31 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, which indicated the resident had intact cognition. The MDS indicated the resident had no falls since admission/entry or reentry or the assessment (which was a quarterly MDS with an ARD of 02/23/2024). R31's Care Plan included a problem initiated 02/14/2022, that indicated the resident was at risk for falls due to weakness, decreased mobility/endurance, pain, and cognitive impairment. An Event Report, dated 02/25/2024 at 9:49 AM, revealed R31 had a witnessed fall in the dining room. An Event Report, dated 03/21/2024 at 11:11 PM, revealed R31 had a fall on their buttocks in their bathroom. During an interview on 07/29/2024 at 2:08 PM, R31 stated they had a fall this year in the dining room. During an interview on 07/30/2024 at 2:02 PM, R31 stated they did have a second fall, which was in their bathroom. During an interview on 07/31/2024 at 2:59 PM, MDS Coordinator #7 stated she pulled incident (event) reports for reference to code the MDS correctly for falls. MDS Coordinator #7 stated the resident's 05/24/2024 MDS should have been coded for two falls. During an interview on 08/01/2024 at 3:36 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated her expectation was for the MDS Coordinator to do their research and examine event reports, progress notes, observation reports, and post-fall assessments to reference and code the MDS accordingly and correctly. During an interview on 08/02/2024 at 10:53 AM, the Administrator stated her expectation was for the resident falls to be included on the MDS. The Administrator stated the two falls R31 had should have been included on the resident's 05/24/2024 MDS.
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to develop a care plan to address the wandering behavior of 1 (Resident (R)172) of 22 sampled residents. Finding inc...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to develop a care plan to address the wandering behavior of 1 (Resident (R)172) of 22 sampled residents. Finding included: A facility policy titled Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered, revised 03/2022, revealed, A comprehensive, person-centered care plan that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's physical psychosocial and functional needs is developed and implemented for each resident. A Resident Face Sheet revealed the facility admitted R172 on 03/27/24. According to the Resident Face Sheet, the resident had a medical history that included diagnoses of lack of coordination, muscle weakness, difficulty in walking, falls, Alzheimer's disease, and dementia. An admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 04/02/24, revealed R172 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 3, which indicated the resident had severe cognitive impairment. R172's Resident Progress Notes, dated 04/08/24 at 11:23 AM, revealed the resident often wandered around the unit aimlessly and into other residents' rooms. R172's Resident Progress Notes, dated 04/13/24 at 4:54 PM, revealed at times the resident had to be redirected to stay on the unit and not wander too far. R172's Resident Progress Notes, dated 04/26/24 at 11:08 AM, revealed R172 wandered into other residents' room. R172's Resident Progress Notes, dated 04/28/24 at 5:58 PM, revealed R172 was noted twice during the shift pushing on the patio door or the keypad to try to get outside. The note revealed staff redirected the resident and the resident continued to wander the halls. In an interview on 07/31/24 at 9:22 AM, Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA)18 stated R172 had dementia, was confused, and required redirection. CNA18 stated the resident wandered frequently. In an interview on 07/31/24 at 9:10 AM, Registered Nurse (RN)17 stated she recalled R172 utilized a walker and wandered In an interview on 08/02/24 at 10:08 AM, MDS Coordinator #24 stated R172 wandered on the unit and then the resident started to wander past the therapy hall. She stated they discussed the resident's behavior during a meeting. The MDS Coordinator stated R172 should have had a care plan in place for wandering. In an interview on 07/31/24 at 1:54 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) reported she remembered R172 began wandering and had to be redirected to stay on the unit and not to wander too far. In a follow-up interview on 07/31/24 at 2:02 PM, the DON stated as soon the staff saw the resident's wandering behavior, a care plan should have been implemented. In an interview on 07/31/24 at 2:42 PM, the Administrator stated she expected to see a care plan with interventions in place related to wandering for the resident.
CONCERN (D)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure nail care was provided to a dependent resident for 1 (Resident (R)26) of 2 residents reviewed ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure nail care was provided to a dependent resident for 1 (Resident (R)26) of 2 residents reviewed for activities of daily living (ADL). Findings included: A facility policy titled, Fingernails/Toenails, Care of, revised 02/2018, revealed, 1. Nail care includes weekly cleaning and regular trimming as tolerated. The policy revealed, 1. Notify the supervisor if the resident refuses the care. A Resident Face Sheet indicated the facility admitted R26 on 05/21/2018. According to the Resident Face Sheet, the resident had a medical history that included diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease, diabetes mellitus, and dementia with behavioral disturbance. A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 07/19/2024, revealed R26 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 4, which indicated the resident had severe cognitive impairment. The MDS indicated the resident was dependent on staff for personal hygiene. R26's Care Plan included a problem statement initiated on 01/25/2022 that indicated the resident required assistance with ADLs due to weakness, cognitive impairment, impaired mobility, impaired balance, and decreased endurance. Interventions directed staff to provide fingernail care as ordered (initiated 01/25/2022). During an observation on 07/29/2024 at 10:01 AM, R26 was in bed and had untrimmed fingernails with peeled nail polish and dark debris underneath their fingernails on both hands. During an observation on 07/29/2024 at 12:35 PM, R26 was in the common area eating. Staff were near the resident giving verbal encouragements. R26's fingernails were uncleaned with dark debris underneath. During an observation on 07/30/2024 at 9:43 AM, R26 was in the common area with dirty fingernails and chipped nail polish on nails with a dark brown unknown substance. On 07/30/2024 at 9:46 AM, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA)1 stated checking the resident's nails should be done at least every day. CNA1 stated R26 received a shower that morning. On 07/30/2024 at 10:15 AM, CNA2 confirmed R26 had a shower that morning. CNA2 stated that morning he checked the resident's nails to see if there was anything on them. CNA2 stated the resident was a diabetic and CNAs were not able to cut the residents nails, the nurse would. CNA2 stated he would not cut the residents nails but would clean them with a washcloth or wipe. During an observation on 07/30/2024 at 10:19 AM with CNA2 of R26's fingernails, CNA2 looked at the resident's hands and stated he saw a back substance under the resident's fingernails. CNA2 stated the resident's fingernails were long and probably needed to be cut. On 07/30/2024 at 10:23 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)3 stated R26's fingernails were not cleaned and needed to be cut. LPN3 stated the resident's fingernails should have been cleaned during the resident's shower that morning. LPN3 stated she was not notified that the resident refused nailcare that morning and the CNA should let her know if the resident had refused. During a follow-up interview on 07/30/2024 at 10:28 AM, CNA2 stated he would not have cut R26's nails because the resident was a diabetic, but he should have let the nurse know and he did not. On 07/31/2024 at 3:21 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) said nail care was part of the resident's shower. The DON stated her expectation was that nursing staff performed nail care and hand hygiene before eating. On 07/31/2024 at 3:33 PM, the Administrator said her expectation was that the residents were clean and neat to include their nails. She stated nail hygiene and cleaning should be part of the resident's regular shower routine. The Administrator stated the CNA should have reported to the nurse if nail care was not completed.
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, document review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff wore personal protective equipment (PPE) for 1 (Resident (R)27) of 5 sa...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, record review, document review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff wore personal protective equipment (PPE) for 1 (Resident (R)27) of 5 sampled residents reviewed for infection control, who was on enhanced barrier precautions (EBP). Findings included: A facility policy titled, Enhanced Barrier Precautions with a revision date of 08/2022, indicated, 2. EBPs employ targeted gown and glove use during high contact resident care activities when contact precautions do not otherwise apply. a. Gloves and gown are applied prior to performing the high contact resident care activity (as opposed to before entering the room). The policy revealed 3. Examples of high-contact resident care activities requiring the use of gown and gloves for EBPs include: a. dressing; b. bathing/showering; c. transferring; d. providing hygiene; e. changing linens; f. changing brief or assisting with toileting; g. device care of use (central line, urinary catheter, feeding tube, tracheostomy/ventilator, etc. [et cetera, and other similar things]); and h. wound care (any skin opening requiring a dressing). According to the policy, 5. EBPs are indicated for residents with wounds and/or indwelling medical devices regardless of MDRO [multi-drug-resistant organism] colonization. A Resident Face Sheet revealed the facility admitted R27 on 03/06/2024. According to the Resident Face Sheet, the resident had a medical history that included diagnoses of urinary tract infection, retention of urine, obstructive and reflux uropathy, bladder neck obstruction, and presence of urogenital implants. A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 05/31/2024, revealed R27 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 5, which indicated the resident had severe cognitive impairment. The MDS also indicated the resident had an indwelling catheter. R27's Care Plan included a problem dated 03/06/2024, that indicated the resident had an indwelling urinary catheter related to urinary retention/obstructive uropathy. Interventions directed staff to provide EBP because the resident had an indwelling urinary catheter and to wear gloves and a gown with high contact activities (initiated 06/13/2024). R27's Order History revealed an order dated 06/13/2024, for EBP due to an indwelling urinary catheter, for gloves and gown to be worn with high contact activities, and to make sure a precaution hanger and sign were on the door. An observation on 07/29/2024 at 10:02 AM, revealed Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA)22 entered R27's room and provided the resident a shower. CNA22 wore gloves during the provision of the resident's shower. CNA22 did not wear a gown. During an interview on 07/29/2024 at 10:35 AM, CNA22 stated during R27's shower she only wore gloves. She stated she should have also worn a gown because the resident was on EBP due to having a urinary catheter. During an interview on 08/02/2024 at 11:24 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated she expected the staff to abide by the policy and procedures the Infection Preventionist taught them for EBP. She stated the staff should wear a gown and gloves when they assisted residents with bathing who were on EBP. During an interview on 08/02/2024 at 11:50 AM, the Administrator stated she expected the staff to wear PPE as required.
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 facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure the floor in the kitchen was free of debris, staff appropriately wore a hair restraint, food items were label...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure the floor in the kitchen was free of debris, staff appropriately wore a hair restraint, food items were labeled and dated, expired food items were discarded, and personal items were not stored in the nourishment room. These deficient practices had the potential to affect all residents who received food from the kitchen. Findings included: 1. A facility policy titled, Cleaning and Sanitation of Dining and Food Service Areas, with a copyright date of 2017 revealed, Policy: The nutrition and food services staff will maintain the cleanliness and sanitation of the dining and food services areas through compliance and a written, comprehensive cleaning schedule. In an observation of the second dry storage room on 07/29/2024 at 9:07 AM, there was one individual packet of a sugar substitute and one individual packet of mayonnaise on the floor. During a concurrent observation of the freezer on 07/29/2024 at 9:12 AM, there was a dirty wet towel on the floor at the entrance of the freezer. The Director of Food Services pointed at the wet towel lying on the floor by the freezer and stated it could be a hazard. In an observation of the kitchen on 07/29/2024 at 9:16 AM, there was a cart near the refrigerator that had dirt and a dried yellow stain. In an interview on 08/01/2024 at 11:56 AM, the Director of Nursing stated the kitchen should be kept clean, swept, and mopped. 2. On 07/31/2024 8:49 AM, Dietary Aide (DA) #8 was observed in the kitchen near the dishwasher area. DA #8's shoulder length hair hung out of the side of the hat. In an interview on 07/31/2024 at 8:50 AM, the Director of Food Services stated DA #8 was not in compliance and, she should not have her hair on the side like that. In an interview on 07/31/2024 at 3:27 PM, the Administrator stated all staff assigned to the kitchen, or staff that went into the kitchen, should have a hairnet because they would not want someone's hair in their food. In an interview on 08/01/2024 at 11:56 AM, the Director of Nursing stated kitchen staff must wear hairnets. 3. A facility policy titled Food Storage with a copyright date of 2017, indicated, 4. Plastic containers with tight-fitting covers must be used for storing cereals, cereal products, flour, sugar, dried vegetables and broken lots of bulk foods. All containers must be legible and accurately labeled and dated. During a concurrent observation and an observation of the first dry storage room on 07/29/2024 at 9:05 AM, there were two large undated plastic containers of rice and an opened, undated bag of pasta. The Director of Food Services (DFS) stated the items should have been labeled. Per the DFS, the staff assigned to label had been out. During a concurrent interview and observation of the second dry storage room on 07/29/2024 at 9:08 AM, there was an undated, unlabeled large container of white substance on the bottom shelf with a scoop in it. The DFS stated the white substance was thickener, it should have been labeled and dated, and the scoop should not have been left in it. During an observation of the walk-in refrigerator on 07/29/2024 at 9:10 AM, there were three undated bags of romaine lettuce and one opened, undated bag of onion. During an observation of the kitchen on 07/29/2024 at 9:16 AM, there was one large unlabeled and undated container of yellow powder, that resembled cornmeal, with a scoop at the bottom of the container. During concurrent interview and observation of the nourishment room on Unit 1 on 07/31/2024 at 9:04 AM, there were individual boxes of cereal with no expiration dates. The Director of Food Services stated items without expiration dates, like the cereal, could result in a resident getting sick. During an observation of the nourishment room on Unit 3 on 07/31/2024 at 9:49 AM, there were individual boxes of cereal with no expiration dates. During an observation of the nutrition room on Unit 3 on 07/31/2024 at 9:50 AM, there was an unlabeled and undated plastic bag that contained red velvet cake and chocolate marble cake. During an observation of the nourishment room on Unit 3 on 07/31/2024 at 9:51 AM, there were two cartons of nonfat milk with expiration date of 07/29/2024. During an observation of the nutrition room on Unit 2 on 07/31/2024 at 9:55 AM, there was an unlabeled and undated bottle of creamer and a unlabeled and undated bottle of turkey gravy. During an observation of the nourishment room on Unit 2 on 07/31/2024 at 9:56 AM, there were individual boxes of cereal with no expiration dates. In an interview on 07/31/2024 at 3:27 PM, the Administrator stated items with no expiration should not be in circulation and all food products must be dated and labeled. In an interview on 08/01/2024 at 11:56 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated the dietary staff must make sure items were dated and labeled and expired food items were discarded. The DON stated if a resident received the expired milk, gastro-intestinal problems could have been a potential adverse outcome. During an interview on 08/01/2024 at 2:19 PM, the Dietary Manager (DM) stated the dietary aides were supposed check daily for expired items and discard them. The DM stated if any the resident had received any expired food items, sickness like food poisoning was a possible adverse outcome. 4. During an observation of the nourishment room on Unit 3 on 07/31/2024 at 9:35 AM, there were personal items to include a hairbrush, a comb with matted and dusty hair, one pair of glasses, one bottle of hand body lotion, and one bottle of nail polish remover. In an interview on 07/31/2024 at 3:27 PM, the Administrator stated the personal items, should not have been in the pantry. In an interview n 08/01/2024 at 11:56 AM, the Director of Nursing stated the nail polish was not supposed to be in the nourishment room.
Dec 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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on review of the facility policy, record review and interview, the facility failed to report an alleged violation within 24 hours for 1 of 4 residents reviewed (Resident (R)3. Findings include:...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on review of the facility policy, record review and interview, the facility failed to report an alleged violation within 24 hours for 1 of 4 residents reviewed (Resident (R)3. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation or Misappropriation-Reporting and Investigating states 3.b. Immediately is defined as within 24 hours of an allegation that does not involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury. Record review on 12/5/2023 at 10:30 AM revealed the facsimile stapled to the 24 Initial Report was dated 7/26/2023 at 1456 (2:56 PM). The Date/Time of the Reportable Incident was dated 7/24/2023 at 11:30 AM. Review of the progress note dated 7/24/2023 at 11:30 AM revealed discovery of R3 bleeding from her forehead and 911 was called. An interview was conducted with the Administrator on 12/5/2023 at 12:50 PM. She stated, There was a time lapse for the reporting of stitches. She said she was made aware the next morning and went ahead and reported it. She said the Director of Nurses didn ' t think it was a reportable for stitches. She said she in-serviced all the house supervisors on 8/15/2023 in the monthly meeting.
Jan 2023 2 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 review of the facility policy, record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to protect 1 of 7 residents from sexu...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the facility policy, record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to protect 1 of 7 residents from sexual abuse. Resident (R)3 inappropriately touched R4 on 12/27/2022 at approximately 5:15 PM. This was observed by multiple staff members. After the incident, R3 was left unsupervised in his room, which resulted in R3 touching R4 inappropriately, again. On 01/11/2023 at approximately 3:50 PM, the State Agency (SA) determined that the facility's non-compliance with one or more federal health, safety, and/or quality regulations has caused or was likely to cause serious injury, serious harm, serious impairment, or death. The Administrator was notified that the allegation of sexual abuse constituted immediate jeopardy (IJ) at F600 beginning on 12/27/2022. On 01/12/2023 at approximately 5 PM, the facility provided an acceptable IJ removal plan. On 01/13/2023 at approximately 12 PM, the survey team validated the facility's corrective actions and removed the IJ. The facility remained out of compliance at F600 at a lower scope and severity of D. Findings include: Review of the facility's undated abuse policy revealed, Sexual abuse was defined as, but not limited to, sexual harassment, sexual coercion, or sexual assault. R3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including, but not limited to, stage 4 chronic kidney disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, major depressive disorder, and hypothyroidism. The resident scored a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14/15 as of 12/12/2022, indicating he was cognitively intact. R4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including, but not limited to, Parkinson's disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, muscle weakness, vascular dementia, and cerebral infarction due to thrombosis of unspecified cerebral artery. The resident scored BIMS score of 07/15 as of 10/12/2022, indicating mild cognitive impairment. Review of R3's care plan revealed he was care planned for sexually inappropriate behaviors / actions. An intervention added on 09/16/2022 required staff to provide supervision to the resident at all times while in public areas with surrounding female residents. Review of facility investigation of sexual abuse allegation involving R3 and R4 revealed that on 12/27/2022 at approximately 5:15 PM, R3 woke from a nap and needed to be changed. He grabbed his Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) during care between her legs and on her breast. Another CNA assisted but he started touching her as well. A third CNA was brought in for redirection. After care was finished, R3 left his room. He approached R4 as she was walking toward the dinner table and grabbed her between the legs. LPN1 intervened and separated them. The Administrator, Emergency Medical Services, and police were notified. The resident refused hospitalization, and the police warned him that his actions could warrant legal repercussions. Review of CNA2's statement revealed she went into R3's room to find he had soiled his bed. As she tried to clean him, he grabbed her breast and buttock. She told him to stop. Review of CNA1's statement revealed she heard a fellow CNA needed help with changing R3 because he was inappropriately touching her. She went in to assist, but when the resident was inappropriate with her as well, she went to get a male CNA. Interview with R4 on 01/09/2023 at approximately 12:17 PM and 1:37 PM revealed that on 12/27/2022 at approximately suppertime, she came out of her room to go to the nurse's station. She heard someone call her name. Turning around, she saw R3 who then grabbed her between the legs. Interview further revealed that R4 was alright but she didn't think she would ever be alright with R3 around anymore. During an interview with CNA1 on 01/09/2023 at approximately 12:45 PM, she confirmed her statement. She entered R3's room to assist CNA2 in changing him - since the resident was groping her. He started doing the same thing to her. She was able to find a male CNA who could calm the resident. She then left to pass out supper trays. At this time, R4 was walking in the hallway to come up for dinner. R3 was also in the hallway and grabbed her between the legs. CNA1 told R3 he cannot do that and tried to separate them. CNA3 took R3 to his room, then went to help the rest of the staff pass out meal trays. CNA1 observed R3 grab R4 again in the main dining area before he was separated again. R4 was upset about the incident and how R3 was still on the unit and gets to get away with it. The facility now requires that R3 be supervised at all times if he is outside of his room. During an interview with CNA2 on 01/09/2023 at approximately 1:07 PM, she confirmed her statement. R3 was grabbing her while she tried to provide care during supper. The resident had a history of grabbing people. She later observed R3 grab R4 between the legs. This happened a few times that day, and she was able to confirm that she witnessed R3 grab R4 a second time while she was in the dining area. Interview with Administrator on 01/09/2023 at approximately 1:20 PM revealed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)1 was in the hallway passing medications when R3 was going to supper. Staff had just gotten R3 up. He was put in a wheelchair which he can self-propel. He rolled up to R4 and grabbed her between the legs. LPN1 notified the Administrator at this time. Staff consoled R4 and took her to the dining room while CNA3 took R3. The Administrator told R4 she would try to get R3 out of the building. During an interview with LPN1 on 01/09/2023 at approximately 1:30 PM, she confirmed her statement. R4 was using a walker while R3 approached her with his wheelchair. He grabbed her between the legs. LPN1 told him to stop and separated them, then notified the Administrator. Interview with CNA1 on 01/09/2023 at approximately 2:10 PM confirmed that CNA1 witnessed R3 grope R4 on two occasions: once in the hallway while R3 was on her way to supper and again during supper in the dining area when CNA3 was helping to pass out trays. Interview with CNA2 on 01/09/2023 at approximately 4:04 PM also confirmed that R3 groped R4 twice. The first time was in the hallway and the second time was in the dining room. Interview with Psychiatric Consultant (PC)1 on 01/09/2023 at an unspecified time, revealed she saw R3 after the incident. R3 has tested alert and oriented since she first saw him as a patient. He has been on antidepressants for mood and inappropriate sexual behaviors. The resident at times downplays the incident. At other times, R3 denies the incident occurred. The resident has been warned that he is crossing into legal territory, but he has disregarded this. Interview with Medical Doctor (MD)1 on 01/09/2023 at an unspecified time, revealed that R3 has not denied his behaviors. The resident has been reminded that his behavior could be criminal and require intervention from law enforcement or expulsion from the facility. The resident has acknowledged this. MD1's assessment is that while, at times, R3's health conditions and kidney failure might impair his capacity, the resident is overall able to understand the difference between right and wrong and the implications of his decisions. It is possible that his health conditions have unmasked bad behaviors and lowered inhibitions, but these behaviors place other facility residents at risk. Interview with Administrator on 01/11/2023 at approximately 12:05 PM revealed that CNA3 left R4 unsupervised in his room to assist staff passing out trays. This occurred minutes after he had groped R3 in the hallway. She denied that R3 touched R4 a second time, however, revealing that CNA1 intervened in the dining room before he touched R4. Interview with CNA1 on 01/11/2023 at approximately 12:25 PM confirmed the Administrator's recount of events on 12/27/2022. CNA1 stated that she was misunderstood about whether R3 succeeded in touching R4 a second time. Multiple unsuccessful attempts were made to interview LPN2 and the previous DON over the course of the survey. The facility's removal plan included: The Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA) and Social Services Director (SSD) interviewed /assessed residents in neighborhood with BIMS scores of 9 and above for potential abuse. Concerns were not identified. Nursing supervisors and SSD and designee updated resident behavior monitoring sheets to describe specific behaviors and staff response. Resident evaluated and continues to be evaluated by primary care provider. Resident continues to have monthly and PRN therapy scheduled with licensed mental health professional. 1:1 supervision of resident during waking hours while social services works on possible discharge planning for resident. 1:1 supervision initiated at 8 PM on 01/11/2023. Resident will not be seated near female resident(s) at activities, dining, etc. when at all possible. IDT reviewed and revised care plan to identify patterns in resident's behaviors and implement interventions. Care plan revisions and interventions communicated to front line staff caring for resident on 12/28/2022. LNHA immediately re-educated staff on duty re: abuse on day of event. Abuse policies were reviewed / updated to include all sources of abuse, including resident - resident. Staff Development Coordinator (SDC) provided abuse re-education to all community staff by end of day Friday 01/23/2023. Abuse investigation procedure and documentation process were reviewed by LNHA. Abuse policies were reviewed/updated to include all sources of abuse, including resident - resident. All staff on duty were re-educated by end of day 01/12/2023. SDC provided abuse re-education to all community staff by end of day Friday 01/13/2023. Abuse investigation procedure and documentation process were reviewed by LNHA and DON. DON and designee continued to re-educate Nurse Aides and Licensed Nurses on documenting behaviors. Behavior documentation was monitored by Social Services Director or designee and care plans were updated as indicated. Staff educated on new interventions either verbally or in writing. 1:1 supervision of resident during waking hours while social services works on possible discharge planning for resident. 1:1 supervision initiated at 8 PM on 01/11/2023. Resident placed on 1:1 supervision when out of room. Resident moved to private room on another unit and 1:1 continued. Behavior monitoring documentation as well as all investigations to be reviewed at all QAPI meetings.
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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to report an allegation of sexual abuse involving Resident (R)3 and un...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to report an allegation of sexual abuse involving Resident (R)3 and unidentified female residents. On 09/15/2022 at approximately 3:55 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)2 documented in R3's progress notes that he had been touching female residents inappropriately and that two of the female residents were upset by this. The facility did not report this allegation to state health authorities, and R3 was involved in another allegation of sexual abuse on 12/27/2022. On 01/12/2023 at approximately 10 AM, the State Agency (SA) determined that the facility's non-compliance with one or more federal health, safety, and/or quality regulations has caused or was likely to cause serious injury, serious harm, serious impairment, or death. The administrator was notified that the failure to report the 09/15/2022 sexual abuse allegations involving R3 constituted immediate jeopardy (IJ) at F609 beginning on 09/15/2022. On 01/12/2023 at approximately 5 PM, the facility provided an acceptable IJ removal plan. On 01/13/2023 at approximately 12 PM, the survey team validated the facility's corrective actions and removed the IJ. The facility remained out of compliance at F609 at a lower scope and severity of D. Findings include: Review of the facility's undated abuse policy revealed It is the responsibility of our employees . to promptly report any incident or suspected incident of neglect or resident abuse Employees must immediately report any suspected abuse or incidents of abuse to the Director of Nursing Services. R3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including, but not limited to, stage 4 chronic kidney disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, major depressive disorder, and hypothyroidism. The resident scored a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 14/15 as of 12/12/2022, indicating he is cognitively intact. Review of R3's progress notes revealed that, on 09/15/2022, LPN2 noted that R3 had been touching female residents inappropriately - two of the female residents were upset by his actions - he knows he shouldn't be doing this. LPN2 also noted that his actions were reported to Social Services, the responsible party, and the medical doctor. A follow-up note authored by the current Director of Nursing (DON) on 09/16/2022 revealed that the on-call MD ordered an increase in Prozac and required staff to provide supervision to the resident at all times while in public areas with surrounding female residents. Interview with Social Services Director on 01/09/2022 at approximately 4:30 PM revealed she could not remember LPN2 reporting the 09/15/2022 allegation of sexual abuse involving R3. Interview with Medical Director (MD)1 on 01/11/2023 at approximately 2:25 PM confirmed that there was an incident involving R3 in September. On reviewing the 09/15/2022 note, he recalled the notification but could not remember details. Interview with Administrator on 01/12/2023 at approximately 10:15 AM revealed that she could not find the 09/15/2022 incident of R3 inappropriately touching female residents in the facility reportables. Interview with the current DON on 01/12/2023 at approximately 10:17 PM revealed she did not know who LPN2 reported the incident to. When she learned of it the following day, she informed the previous DON as well as the Medical Director. Interview with Social Services Director on 01/12/2023 at approximately 10:52 AM revealed the 09/15/2022 allegation of sexual abuse should have been reported to state health authorities. Multiple unsuccessful attempts were made to interview LPN2 and the previous DON over the course of the survey. The facility's removal plan included: The Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA) and Social Services Director (SSD) interviewed all interviewable residents for sexual harassment incident notifications or concerns back to 09/15/2022. This was completed on 01/13/2023. The DON completed a medical record review of all non-interviewable resident medical records for identification of inappropriate sexual harassment incidents back to September 15, 2022. Abuse policies were reviewed / updated to include all sources of abuse, including resident - resident. All staff on duty were re-educated by end of day 01/12/2023. SDC provided abuse re-education to all community staff by end of day Friday 01/13/2023. Abuse investigation procedure and documentation process were reviewed by LNHA and DON. DON and designee continued to re-educate Nurse Aides and Licensed Nurses on documenting behaviors. Behavior documentation was monitored by Social Services Director or designee and care plans were updated as indicated. Staff educated on new interventions either verbally or in writing. 1:1 supervision of resident during waking hours while social services works on possible discharge planning for resident. 1:1 supervision initiated at 8 PM 01/11/2023. Resident placed on 1:1 supervision when out of room. Resident moved to private room on another unit and 1:1 continued. Behavior monitoring documentation as well as all investigations to be reviewed at all QAPI meetings.
Apr 2022 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Drug Regimen Review (Tag F0756)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure that the consulting pharmaci...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure that the consulting pharmacist identified during the monthly medication regimen review all irregularities. Specifically, a resident had an order for an as needed (PRN) antipsychotic medication and there was no indication of a 14 day stop date or that the consulting pharmacist identified this issue for one resident (R)59 of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications, resulting in the potential for adverse side effects from an unnecessary medication. Findings include: Review of R59's Face Sheet (undated) found in the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) under the Resident tab indicated R59 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of dementia in other diseases classified elsewhere without behavioral disturbance and generalized anxiety disorder. Review of R59's Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 03/22/22 found in the EMR under the RAI tab revealed R59 did not have a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) completed, indicating the resident never/rarely made decisions. Review of R59's Physician's Orders dated March 22, 2022, located in the EMR under Orders tab revealed that R59 was prescribed Haldol (antipsychotic medication) oral concentrate two milligrams (mg) per milliliter (ml) and to give 0.5-1ml by mouth every four hours as needed (PRN) for restlessness and agitation. Review of R59's Medication Administration Record (MAR) dated March 2022 located in the EMR under the Orders tab revealed R59 began taking Haldol 0.5 -1 ml by mouth every 4 hours PRN on 03/22/22 and the justification for use was .for restlessness and agitation . Review of R59's MAR dated April 2022, revealed R59 had taken Haldol every day through 04/22/22 Review of R59's Progress Notes from March 2022 to April 2022 in the EMR under the Progress Notes tab, revealed no pharmacy reviews, or recommendations, regarding the use of Haldol. During an interview with the Pharmacy Consultant on 04/22/22 at 12:21 PM, she stated that she was aware that a PRN antipsychotic should have a 14 day stop date and should have been reviewed by the doctor for recommendation to continue or discontinue using the medication. During an interview with the facility Medical Director on 04/22/22 at 12:40 PM, the Medical Director stated that he doesn't use Haldol long term. He also stated that he would follow protocol and review the medication after 14 days of the medication being used. Review of the undated facility's policy titled, Medication Monitoring and Management, indicated, .PRN orders for antipsychotic drugs are limited to 14 days. Orders cannot be renewed unless physician evaluates the resident for continued appropriateness of medication .
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 interview, record review and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure that the use of an PRN (as ne...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure that the use of an PRN (as needed) psychoactive medications was not continued beyond the 14 days without documentation from the resident's physician the indication for continued use for one of five residents (R)59 reviewed for unnecessary medications, resulting in the potential for adverse side effects from an unnecessary medications. Findings include: Review of R59's Face Sheet (undated) located in the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) under the Resident tab indicated R59 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of dementia in other diseases classified elsewhere without behavioral disturbance and generalized anxiety disorder. Review of R59's Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 03/22/22 located in the EMR under the RAI tab revealed R59, that a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) had not been completed, indicating the resident was severely impaired-never/rarely made decisions. Review of R59's Physician's Orders dated March 22, 2022, located in the EMR under the Orders tab revealed that R59 was prescribed Haldol (antipsychotic medication) oral concentrate two milligrams (mg) per milliliter (ml) and to give 0.5-1ml by mouth every four hours as needed (PRN) for restlessness and agitation. Review of R59's Medication Administration Record (MAR) dated March 2022 located in the EMR under the Orders tab revealed R59 began taking Haldol 0.5 -1 ml by mouth every 4 hours PRN on 03/22/22 and the justification for use was .for restlessness and agitation . Review of R59's MAR dated April 2022, revealed R59 had taken Haldol every day through 04/22/22. During an interview with the Pharmacy Consultant on 04/22/22 at 12:21 PM, she verified that she was in the facility on 04/19/22 and had not looked at R59's Haldol order. She stated that it is the facility's responsibility to let her know when a medication should be reviewed. During an interview with the facility's Medical Director on 04/22/22 at 1:40 PM, the Medical Director stated that he doesn't use Haldol as a long-term medication for residents. Review of the undated facility's policy titled, Medication Monitoring and Management, indicated, .Evaluate the use of current PRNs and discuss with MD continued need .
Jan 2021 4 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, record reviews and interview the facility failed to assure that expired medications were removed from active drug storage in 1 of 3 medication rooms. The findings include: On 1...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record reviews and interview the facility failed to assure that expired medications were removed from active drug storage in 1 of 3 medication rooms. The findings include: On 1/11/2021 at approximately 12:05 PM inspection of the Hall 100 Medication Room revealed: -one opened and undated 15 ml (milliliter) bottle of Refresh Tears by Allergan belonging to Resident # 47. The manufacturer labeling states: Discard 90 days after opening. -the medication room refrigerator revealed one bottle of Magic Mouthwash #1 belonging to Resident # 53 that had been labeled by pharmacy discard after 12/17/2020. On 1/11/2021 at approximately 12:17 PM Registered Nurse # 1 verified and acknowledged these findings.
CONCERN (E)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record reviews and interviews the facility failed to have physician orders for skin care for 1 of 4 resid...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record reviews and interviews the facility failed to have physician orders for skin care for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for skin care. Resident # 10 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and reentered the facility on 8/6/2020 with diagnoses including but not limited to tracheobronchomalcia and Alzheimer's. Cross reference F656. The findings include: On 1/11/2021 at approximately 11:52 AM Resident # 10, who was unable to speak clearly, showed the bloody top of his/her head to the Surveyor. During a follow-up visit with Resident # 10 on 1/13/2021 at approximately 11:35 AM he/she removed cap revealing approximately 2-3-inch streaks of dried blood atop his/her head. A review of the resident's physician orders and care plan by the Surveyor and LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) # 1 failed to show an order for skin care related to the top of the resident's head. LPN # 1 stated that the resident was known to pick the top of his/her head, that there had been an order for skin care to that area and that it is was no longer in the medical record. LPN # 1 stated that Certified Nursing Assistants should have noted any concern after the resident's bath on 1/12/2021. LPN # 1 proceeded to create the following order Cleanse red area to top of head with ns (normal saline), apply abt (antibiotic) ointment, cover with gauze and secure with tape, change every night and PRN (as needed) until healed.
CONCERN (F)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observations, interviews and review of the facility policy titled, Food Storage, Food Service Department, Dress Code, and Satellite Kitchen Cleaning Policy, the facility failed to ensure food...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews and review of the facility policy titled, Food Storage, Food Service Department, Dress Code, and Satellite Kitchen Cleaning Policy, the facility failed to ensure foods are stored, prepared and served under sanitary conditions in 1 of 1 kitchens and 1 of 3 satellite kitchens reviewed. The findings included: During initial tour of the kitchen on 1/22/2021 at approximately 11:30 AM revealed the Dietary Manager with no hair restraint and moving about the kitchen. Further review of the kitchen during initial tour revealed: a. A piece of cake wrapped in plastic had no date in the reach in cooler. b. A bottle of lemon juice opened with no date in the reach in cooler. c. A container of cooked bacon and a container of cookedeggs covered in plastic with no date in the walk in cooler. d. A carton of milk that was expired in the reach in cooler. e. A container of Ambrosia in the reach in cooler was expired. f. Food was stacked in boxes on the upper shelves in the freezer 2 - 3 inches from the ceiling. An interview on 1/11/2021 at approximately 12:01 PM the dietary manager confirmed the findings. An observation on 1/13/2021 at approximately 1:35 PM of the satellite kitchen on Unit 2 revealed: a. An ice scoop in the holder with a small amount of water and a black substance in the bottom. The scoop container had no drainage. b. A moderate amount of dried spillage/splatter on all 4 sides of the microwave. c. The ice machine had a build up of a black substance around the inner rim. d. A piece of chocolate pie wrapped in plastic wrap inside the unit refrigerator with no date. An interview on 1/13/2021 at approximately 1:35 PM with the Dietary Manager confirmed the findings. Review on 1/13/2021 at approximately 2:30 PM fro the facility policy titled, Food Storage, states under Procedure #11, Food will be stored a minimum of 6 inches above the floor, 18 inches from the ceiling and 2 inches from the wall on clean racks or other clean surfaces, and is protected from splashes, overhead pipes, or other contamination, (ceiling sprinklers, sewer/waste, disposal pipes, vents, etc.). Further review of the Food Storage policy states under #13, Leftover food will be stored in covered containers or wrapped carefully and securely. Each item will be clearly labeled and dated before being refrigerated. Left over food is used within 7 days or discarded . Review on 1/13/2021 at approximately 3:00 PM of the facility policy titled, Food Services Department, Dress Code, states under, Hair Restraints, All employees engaged in food service prep, serving or kitchen work need to wear a hair restraint. Review on 1/13/2021 at approximately 3:00 PM of the facility policy titled, Satellite Kitchen Cleaning Policy, states, Ice Machine - The maintenance department empties and cleans and sanitizes all parts semi-annually. Ice scoop and scoop holder - All ice scoop holders that are not equipped with drainage holes are to have drainage holes drilled.
CONCERN (F)

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

Garbage Disposal (Tag F0814)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview and review of the facility policy titled, Used Grease and Dumpster Policy, the facility failed to ensure the grease pit was not overflowing with old grease, and trash w...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and review of the facility policy titled, Used Grease and Dumpster Policy, the facility failed to ensure the grease pit was not overflowing with old grease, and trash was put into the dumpsters and not on the cement around the dumpsters. The facility further failed to ensure a light colored thin substance was not leaking from any of 4 dumpsters. The findings included: An observation on 1/13/2021 at approximately 8:00 AM of the grease pit revealed old black grease running down the front of the receptacle and onto the cement. Further observation on 1/13/2021 at approximately 8:00 AM of the facility's 4 dumspters revealed trash around the dumpsters on the cement and not inside the receptacles, and a light colored thin substance was on the cement around the dumpsters. An interview on 1/13/2021 at approximately 8:00 AM with the Infection Control nurse verified the findings and he/she stated that he/she was not why the grease pit was running over, the trash was outside the dumpsters and he/she did not what the thin, light colored substance was leaking from the dumpsters. Review on 1/13/2021 at approximately 8:45 AM of the facility policy titled, Used Grease and Dumpster Policy, states, Food Service Director has a monthly calendar to check grease area for spilled grease on the first of each month and to keep area cleaned accordingly. Food Service Director checks the dumpsters along with the grease area on the first of the month. Regarding the dumpsters, areas checked are dumpster lids, plugs and cleanliness. All areas needing attention will be addressed immediately.
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

  • "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
  • "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
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 2 life-threatening violation(s), $84,708 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 14 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $84,708 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in South Carolina. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (21/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 21/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Martha Franks Baptist Retirement Center's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns Martha Franks Baptist Retirement Center 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 Martha Franks Baptist Retirement Center Staffed?

CMS rates Martha Franks Baptist Retirement Center's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above 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. RN turnover specifically is 62%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Martha Franks Baptist Retirement Center?

State health inspectors documented 14 deficiencies at Martha Franks Baptist Retirement Center during 2021 to 2024. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 12 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 Martha Franks Baptist Retirement Center?

Martha Franks Baptist Retirement Center is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 88 certified beds and approximately 71 residents (about 81% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in Laurens, South Carolina.

How Does Martha Franks Baptist Retirement Center Compare to Other South Carolina Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in South Carolina, Martha Franks Baptist Retirement Center's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (41%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Martha Franks Baptist Retirement Center?

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?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations.

Is Martha Franks Baptist Retirement Center Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, Martha Franks Baptist Retirement Center 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 Martha Franks Baptist Retirement Center Stick Around?

Martha Franks Baptist Retirement Center 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 Martha Franks Baptist Retirement Center Ever Fined?

Martha Franks Baptist Retirement Center has been fined $84,708 across 1 penalty action. This is above the South Carolina average of $33,926. Fines in this range indicate compliance issues significant enough for CMS to impose meaningful financial consequences. Common causes include delayed correction of deficiencies, repeat violations, or care failures affecting resident safety. Families should ask facility leadership what changes have been made since these penalties.

Is Martha Franks Baptist Retirement Center on Any Federal Watch List?

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