Martha Franks Baptist Retirement Center
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
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
- In South Carolina
- #122/186
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- 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.
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
Below South Carolina average (2.8)
Below average - review inspection findings carefully
Near South Carolina avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Well above median ($33,413)
Moderate penalties - review what triggered them
The Ugly 14 deficiencies on record
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 →
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 →
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 →
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 →
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 →
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 →
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 →
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 →
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 →
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 →
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 →
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 →
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 →
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 →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
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
- • 41% turnover. Below South Carolina's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • 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.
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.