L.M.C.- Extended Care
Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.
L.M.C. Extended Care in Lexington, South Carolina holds a Trust Grade of F, which indicates significant concerns about the quality of care provided at this facility. Ranking #151 out of 186 in South Carolina places it in the bottom half of nursing homes in the state, and #5 out of 7 in Lexington County means there are only two local options deemed better. The facility is showing signs of improvement, with the number of issues decreasing from 7 in 2024 to 5 in 2025. Staffing is a relative strength with a rating of 4 out of 5 stars and a turnover rate of 45%, which is slightly below the state average. However, the facility has been fined $51,945, which is concerning and suggests there have been compliance problems. Specific incidents raise serious red flags: a critical medication error occurred when a resident did not receive her prescribed medications, leading to a dangerous drop in blood pressure that required hospitalization. Additionally, another critical incident involved a dialysis resident who died after not receiving necessary care for a serious medical condition. While the staffing levels are good, the poor overall and health inspection ratings highlight significant weaknesses that families should consider carefully.
- Trust Score
- F
- In South Carolina
- #151/186
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 45% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ○ Average
- $51,945 in fines. Higher than 71% of South Carolina facilities. Some 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
- 16 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.
The Bad
Below South Carolina average (2.8)
Significant quality concerns identified by CMS
Near South Carolina avg (46%)
Higher turnover may affect care consistency
Above median ($33,413)
Moderate penalties - review what triggered them
The Ugly 16 deficiencies on record
Jul 2025
4 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on review of facility policy, record reviews, and interviews the facility failed to submit an initial report of an allegation of staff-to-resident abuse to the state survey agency within two hou...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Investigate Abuse
(Tag F0610)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on review of facility policy, record reviews, and interviews the facility failed to complete a thorough investigation for allegations of staff-to-resident abuse for 1 Resident (R)21 of 6 sampled...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
PASARR Coordination
(Tag F0644)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to refer Resident (R)4 for a Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) Level II, after the resident received a new diagnosis of a se...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0883
(Tag F0883)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on review of facility policy, record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure Resident (R)191's medical record included documentation they were offered the pneumonia vaccine for 1 o...
Read full inspector narrative →
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
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
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 reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure Resident (R)3 was treated w...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2024
7 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a privacy bag was pr...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0578
(Tag F0578)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, facility policy review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure Resident (R)73 and R96 had a physi...
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
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on review of facility policy, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident (R)20 was free from verbal abuse for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for abuse.
Findings include:
Rev...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure medications were pro...
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 review of facility policy, record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to proper store and label res...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility policy review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to label/store and ensure medications were not ...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility policy review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff served meal trays under sanitar...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2023
1 deficiency
1 IJ
CRITICAL
(J)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Deficiency F0760
(Tag F0760)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, record reviews, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure a significant medication e...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2023
1 deficiency
1 IJ
CRITICAL
(J)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the facility policy, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to provide necessary care and service...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2023
1 deficiency
1 IJ
CRITICAL
(J)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY**
Review of the facility policy titled, Standard Policy/Procedure: Fall Prevention Program last revised 2/14/23, revealed The fac...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2022
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0688
(Tag F0688)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to provide care and services for one resident (R)197 of...
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
- • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 3 life-threatening violation(s), $51,945 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 16 deficiencies on record, including 3 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $51,945 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in South Carolina. Major compliance failures.
- • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is L.M.C.- Extended Care's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns L.M.C.- Extended 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 L.M.C.- Extended Care Staffed?
CMS rates L.M.C.- Extended Care's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 45%, compared to the South Carolina average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at L.M.C.- Extended Care?
State health inspectors documented 16 deficiencies at L.M.C.- Extended Care during 2022 to 2025. These included: 3 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 13 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 L.M.C.- Extended Care?
L.M.C.- Extended Care 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 352 certified beds and approximately 275 residents (about 78% occupancy), it is a large facility located in Lexington, South Carolina.
How Does L.M.C.- Extended Care Compare to Other South Carolina Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in South Carolina, L.M.C.- Extended Care's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (45%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting L.M.C.- Extended 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?" "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 L.M.C.- Extended Care Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, L.M.C.- Extended Care has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 3 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 L.M.C.- Extended Care Stick Around?
L.M.C.- Extended Care has a staff turnover rate of 45%, 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 L.M.C.- Extended Care Ever Fined?
L.M.C.- Extended Care has been fined $51,945 across 4 penalty actions. This is above the South Carolina average of $33,598. 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 L.M.C.- Extended Care on Any Federal Watch List?
L.M.C.- Extended 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.