Angel Oak Nursing And Rehabilitation Center, LLC

4452 Socastee Blvd, Myrtle Beach, SC 29588 (843) 293-1137
For profit - Limited Liability company 88 Beds SIMCHA HYMAN & NAFTALI ZANZIPER Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
85/100
#1 of 186 in SC
Last Inspection: November 2024

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

Overview

Angel Oak Nursing and Rehabilitation Center in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, has a Trust Grade of B+, indicating that it is above average and recommended for families considering care options. It ranks #1 out of 186 facilities statewide and #1 out of 8 in Horry County, placing it at the very top of local choices. The facility is currently improving, having reduced the number of issues from 3 in 2023 to 2 in 2024. Staffing is rated average with a turnover rate of 39%, which is better than the state average, meaning staff are more likely to remain and develop relationships with residents. While there have been no fines, which is a positive sign, there was a serious incident where one resident was physically abused by another, highlighting some concerns that families should consider alongside the facility's strengths.

Trust Score
B+
85/100
In South Carolina
#1/186
Top 1%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Better
3 → 2 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
39% turnover. Near South Carolina's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most South Carolina facilities.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 24 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for South Carolina. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
11 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★★★
5.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 3 issues
2024: 2 issues

The Good

  • 5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (39%)

    9 points below South Carolina average of 48%

Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 39%

Near South Carolina avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Chain: SIMCHA HYMAN & NAFTALI ZANZIPER

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 11 deficiencies on record

1 actual harm
Nov 2024 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint

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

Deficiency F0602 (Tag F0602)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on review of facility policy, record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to prevent missappropriation of resident property for Resident (R)2 and R3. Specifically, Licensed Practical Nurs...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on review of facility policy, record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to prevent missappropriation of resident property for Resident (R)2 and R3. Specifically, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)1 removed 5 pills from the narcotic locked box, belonging to R2 and R3. LPN1 did not administer the medications to the residents, for 2 of 2 residents reviewed. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Abuse/Neglect/Exploitation/Misappropriation/Mistreatment/Injury, implemented on March 2022 and revised on April 6, 2023, documented, It is the policy of this facility to provide protections for the health, welfare, and the rights of each resident by developing and implementing written policies and procedures that prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, exploitation, mistreatment, including injuries of unknown sources and misappropriation of resident property. Compliance Guidelines: 2. D. c. Misappropriation of Resident Property: The deliberate misplacement, exploitation, or wrongful, temporary, or permanent, use of a resident's belongings or money without the resident's consent. 3. The facility will provide ongoing oversight and supervision of staff to assure its policies are implemented as written. Review of R2's Face Sheet revealed the facility admitted R2 with diagnoses including, but not limited to: cerebrovascular accident with hemiparesis and hemiplegia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and major depressive disorder. Review of R2's Physician Order revealed an order for Tramadol HCI 50mg 1 po q12 hours prn (as needed). Review of R2's Medication Administration Record (MAR) dated 10/01/24 - 10/31/24, revealed the medication Tramadol 50 milligrams, give 1 tablet every 12 hours as needed for pain. Review of R3's Face Sheet revealed the facility admitted R3 with diagnoses including, but not limited to: a fractured right femur and hemarthrosis of right knee and postpolio syndrome. Review of R3's Physician Order revealed an order for Oxycodone 5-325mg 2 tabs po q6 hours prn. Review of R3's MAR dated 10/01/24 - 10/31/24, revealed the medication Oxycodone 5-325 milligrams, give 2 tablets every 6 hours as needed for pain. Review of the Facility's Summary Report of Facility Investigation revealed, On 10/24/24 DON [Director of Nursing] completed a full investigation into the allegation of misappropriation of resident's property by an LPN [Licensed Practical Nurse] in the facility. After viewing video footage of the nurse on shift, it was confirmed that she had taken narcotics out of the narcotic drawer and did not administer them to the residents. In total it was 4 oxycodone 5/325 that belonged to [R3] and 1 Tramadol 50mg that belonged to [R2]. Employee was scheduled to work at 3pm that day. Incident was reported to the local police department, incident was reported to the SC ombudsman, DHEC, and the SC board of Nursing. Residents and residents' families were notified of the incident. The Nurse came in and DON and the Unit Manager both spoke with the nurse and asked her about the incident. LPN showed video footage of her taking the medication and she asked the DON please stop I know that you are showing me She did admit that she took the medication for herself. She stated that she ran out of her pain medication. She was immediately terminated and escorted outside the building. the Employee refused to take a drug test and said that it would come back positive. During review of the video footage, LPN1 was observed on the facility camera, taking Tramadol from the locked narcotic box. LPN1 removed 1 tablet from the blister pack and placed it in a cup. This was observed from the facility video by the director of nursing putting one Tramadol into the medicine cup. Furthermore, LPN1 could be seen removing 4 Oxycodone tablets from the blister pack for R3 and put them in a cup. LPN1 entered a resident room, in which neither of the medications was for. During an observation on 11/04/24 at an unspecified time, R2 was up in his wheelchair watching tv. R2 did not appear to be in distress or experiencing pain. R2 was unable to answer questions. During an interview on 11/04/24 at 11:20 AM, the Unit Manager (UM) stated, I viewed the video and saw her [LPN1] flip through the pages, it made me physically ill, all she said she wanted to do was have a party with her boyfriend. She admitted she took the pills, I walked her out and there was no remorse, what so ever. During multiple observations on 11/19/24, R2 was up and participating in activities and having lunch. R2 did not appear to be in distress or experiencing pain. During an interview on 11/04/24 at 1:06 PM, R3 stated she did not want anymore pain medications because she did not want to be addicted to anything. R3 further stated that she does not remember not getting her pain medications. During an interview on 11/04/24 at 10:40 AM, the DON stated LPN1 had the 5 pills in one cup and took the cup into another resident's room, which neither R2 or R3 resided in. When LPN1 came out of the room she did not have the cup in her hand. The DON stated that LPN1 admitted to taking the medications, and was terminated on 10/24/24. During an interview on 11/04/24 at 10:45 AM, the Administrator stated that she was not working at that time, and the investigation was handled by the DON. Multiple attempts were made to contact LPN1, with no success.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on review of facility policy, observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure a procedure was followed during wound care, to prevent the spread of infection for Reside...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on review of facility policy, observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure a procedure was followed during wound care, to prevent the spread of infection for Resident (R)9, for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for wound care. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Hand Hygiene, dated 06/14/23 and revised on 10/26/23, documents, All staff will perform proper hand hygiene procedures to prevent the spread of infection to other personnel, residents, and visitors. 6. Additional considerations: a. The use of gloves does not replace hand hygiene. Review of the undated facility policy titled, Dressing Change (clean Technique), states: 9. Wash hands/use sanitizer and apply gloves. 10. Remove the soiled dressing and discard in trash bag at bedside. 11. Remove gloves and discard. 13. Wash hands/use hand sanitizer. 14. Put on gloves. 15. Clean the wound according to order. Clean from the center outward. Linear wounds may be cleansed from top to bottom. 16. Discard soiled gauze or Q-tip used for cleaning. 17. Remove gloves and discard if contaminated during cleaning. 18. Wash hands/use hand sanitizer. 19. Put on gloves. 20. Apply clean dressing as ordered. 21. Remove gloves and discard. 22. Wash hands/use hand sanitizer 23. Document the treatment on the treatment record. Review of R9's Face Sheet revealed the facility admitted R9 with diagnoses including, but not limited to: paraplegia, stage 4 pressure ulcer of the sacral area, neurogenic bladder, and multiple sclerosis. Review of R9's Physician Order revealed, Cleanse the wound with wound cleanser, apply calcium alginate to wound bed. Cover with bordered gauze daily and as needed. During an observation of wound care for R9 on 11/21/24 at 9:50 AM, revealed the following: Registered Nurse (RN)1 was assisted with wound care by RN2. RN1 and RN2 gowned up outside the door, then entered the room and washed their hands and applied gloves. RN2 explained the procedure to the resident then removed the bed sheet from the resident and aided the resident in turning to her left side. RN1 removed the soiled dressing, removed her gloves and washed her hands and then applied gloves, the wound bed is clean, does not have an odor, with some redness around the outside of the wound. RN1 removed her gloves and washed her hands and applied gloves, she had cleaned the scissors and the marker. RN1 opened the supplies and put them on the clean field on the over bed table. She wet a 4x4 with the wound cleanser and cleaned the wound inside out and then folded the 4x4 and and wiped around the outside of the wound. RN1 then took a dry 4x4 and wiped around the outside of the wound to dry it off. RN1 failed to remove her gloves and wash her hands, then cut a piece of the calcium alginate for the wound bed, and took the marker and wrote the date, time and her initials onto the border gauze. She placed the calcium alginate into the wound bed and then covered it with the bordered gauze. She then removed her gloves and washed her hands. The 2 nurses remained in the room to dress the resident for an outing with activities. During an interview on 11/21/24 at 10:46 AM, RN1 confirmed that she had not removed her gloves and washed her hands after cleaning the wound and proceeded to apply the clean dressing.
Mar 2023 3 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the facility's policy, record review, video surveillance review and interviews, the facility failed to protec...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the facility's policy, record review, video surveillance review and interviews, the facility failed to protect Resident (R)4 from physical abuse by R5, 2 of 8 residents reviewed for abuse. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation last revised 9/22, revealed It is policy of this facility to provide protections for the health, welfare, and rights of each resident by developing and implementing written policies and procedures that prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, exploitation, and misappropriation of resident property. Abuse: the willful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or punishment with resulting physical harm, pain, or mental anguish. Neglect: the failure of the facility, its employees, or service to provide goods and services to a resident that are necessary to avoid physical harm, pain, mental anguish, or emotional distress. R4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including, but not limited to congestive heart failure, type 2 diabetes, and dementia with behaviors. Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 03/05/23, revealed R4 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 7 out of 15, indicating cognitive impairment. R5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including, but not limited to heart failure, type 2 diabetes, and muscle weakness. Review of the discharge with return not expected MDS with an ARD date of 02/02/23, revealed R5 has a BIMS score of 15 out of 15, which indicates they are cognitively intact. R8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including, but not limited to hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and hypertension. Review of the Annual MDS with an ARD date of 12/28/22 revealed R8 has a BIMS score of 13 out of 15, which indicates they are cognitively intact. Review of a witness statement written by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)2, dated 12/29/22, revealed Around 8:30 PM resident came out of dining room and hollered help they are fighting. This nurse and 2 Certified Nursing Assistants (CNA)s ran to help. At the time I arrived, R4 was rolling away from the table where R5 and R8 sat. When I asked what happened, R8 stated R4 was digging in R5's basket that's on his motorized wheelchair. When I spoke with R4 she only stated that people are mean to her. The following morning R4 asked her nurse if she had any bruises on her face, when the nurse questioned why, she stated he hit me really hard last night. Nurse asked R8 if anyone hit each other last night and she said R5 hit R4 but he (R5) was hit first. R5 stated she (R4 smacked my glasses off of me so I smacked her (R4). An observation and interview on 03/20/23 at 11:15 AM of R4 revealed them wandering and self-propelling on the unit, appropriately dressed. R4 was unable to recall the resident to resident altercation with R5, but stated she feels safe living at the facility. An observation and interview on 03/20/23 at 12:45 PM of R8 revealed that they were unable to recall a resident to resident altercation between R4 and R5 in the dining room. An interview with Social Services (SS) on 03/21/23 at 9:20 AM revealed R4 was hit on purpose by R5 while they were in the dining room. R5 was upset because R4 touched his basket on his motorized wheelchair. R4 has been known to wander into other resident rooms and touch their things but she has never damaged any property and does not take others belongings. After the incident the altercation another resident (R8) reported to nursing staff that R5 was hitting R4. The residents were separated and police were notified along with the resident representative, ombudsman, and the state agency. After the police watched the camera footage they reached out to R4 resident rep and pressed charges on R5 and he was later taken to jail for striking R4 multiple times. An interview with the Administrator and SS on 03/21/23 at 9:45 AM revealed We have video footage of the incident. Upon review of the footage, R5 was observed striking R4, 5 times along with waving his hands in a threatening motion towards R4. R4 was observed putting up their hands and attempting to block the hits from R5 while grimacing, there was no sound on this video evidence. We spoke with R4's Resident Representative and they stated they wanted to press charges on R5. The police reviewed the footage as well and R5 was taken to jail and given the option to pay $100 or face jail time/ have a court case with a jury. R5 decided to pay the fine and was admitted back into the facility under supervision to avoid contact with R4 and was later discharged home with home health services because of the incident. Review of the video surveillance on 03/21/23 at 10:00 AM of the resident to resident altercation on 12/28/22 revealed R5 in the dining room using his motorized wheelchair to grab and shove R4. R5 was observed striking R4 in the face, back of the head, arms, and holding R4's left arm behind her back. Other residents were observed in the video and witnessed this altercation and then went to alert staff. Review of a Progress Note dated 12/29/22 for R4 revealed, R4 asked nurse this morning if she had any bruises on her face, when nurse questioned why she would ask that, resident stated another resident hit her really hard last night. Incident reported to Medical Director (MD) and Director of Nursing (DON). Skin audit completed, and no new bruising or injuries noted, resident is safe and separated from other resident, will continue to monitor. Review of a Progress Note dated 12/29/22 for R4 revealed spoke with resident husband regarding resident being hit by another resident. He was updated on the reporting process and that the investigation is in process. Review of a Progress Note dated 12/28/22 for R5 revealed fellow resident with complaints of this resident (R5) hitting another resident last night in the dining room. When asked, this resident stated the other resident involved smacked his glasses off and so he hit her back. No new injuries visible, MD and DON made aware, resident is safe and separated from other involved party, will continue to monitor. Review of a SS Progress Note dated 12/29/22 for R5 revealed This morning around 8:30 am resident-on-resident incident was reported to me that occurred last evening 12/28/22 around 8:30 pm. R5 who is alert and oriented made physical contact with a cognitively impaired resident, R4. Police Department was then called to report the incident and officer arrived to interview the residents that were involved in the incident. I escorted him to R5's room and stated that R4 was looking and touching things that were in his basket attached to his wheelchair. R5 made claims that R4 made contact to his face causing his glasses to fall off. He admitted that he pushed her away, hit her and then refrained himself from hitting her again. The officer was able to watch on video as there are cameras in the room that this incident occurred in (dining room). The officer spoke with R4 and determined that she is non-interviewable and then spoke with her Resident Representative. R4's Resident Representative explained to the office that he would like to file charges against R5 for assault. The officer informed staff that he would have to get in contact with a judge to issue a warrant for R5 arrest and there was no timeline on how long that may take to get. R5 will be under 1:1 supervision until he is placed under arrest by the Police Department. DON and I went down and explained this situation to R5. He is his own responsible party, we offered to call his family and he stated that he would call them himself. This is an ongoing case with the Police Department and will be handled by them now. Social Services will continue to offer psychosocial support throughout the remainder of this situation. Review of a Progress Note for R5 dated 12/30/22 revealed Police showed up at facility to transport resident to jail. Resident left facility with Police Officer at 1:14 pm. A phone interview on 03/21/23 at 1:27 PM with LPN2 revealed that she confirmed her witness statement and was able to recall the resident asking her if she had bruises on her face from being hit by another resident. Review of a Police Incident Report dated 12/28/22 revealed The Victim (R4) advised she saw the Suspect (R5) and other residents playing a card game in the dining hall. The Victim advised while playing the Suspect was making rude remarks towards her. The Victim advise the Suspect then approached her and began to pull her by the arm. The Victim advised she was then slapped in the face by the Suspect. The Victim advised her left arm was hurting after the incident, no visible injuries during time of report. After speaking with R4 Resident Representative, charges will be pursed against R5, a warrant for Assault of 3rd degree.
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 titled, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to report an allegation of resident to resident abuse between Resident...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on review of the facility policy titled, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to report an allegation of resident to resident abuse between Resident (R1) and R2, no later than 2 hours after the witnessed altercation occurred for 2 of 11 residents reviewed for Abuse. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation, states under section VII. Reporting Response: A. The facility will have written procedures that include: 1. Reporting of all alleged violations to the Administrator, state agency, adult protective services and to all other required agencies (e.g., law enforcement when applicable) within specified time frames: a. Immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation is made, it the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury. b. Not later than 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation do no involve abuse and do not result in serious bodily injury. B. The Administrator will follow up with the government agencies, during business hours, to confirm the initial report was received, and to report the results of the investigation when final within 5 working days of the incident, as required by the state agencies. The facility admitted R1 with diagnoses including but not limited to, Alzheimer's Disease, anxiety disorder and depression. Review of the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 12/23/22 revealed a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 5 out of 15, indicating cognitive deficits. The facility admitted R2 with diagnoses including but not limited to, dementia, aphasia, osteoarthritis, muscle weakness and abnormality of gait and mobility. Review of the quarterly MDS with an ARD of 03/30/23 revealed a BIMS score of 99, indicating cognitive deficits. Review on 03/21/23 at 10:15 AM of the reportable of resident to resident abuse, indicated R1 and R2 had an altercation on 11/20/22 at 21:59 (9:59 PM). No documentation could be found to ensure the altercation between R1 and R2 was reported to the state agency within the 2 hour time frame as required. An interview on 03/21/23 at 2:39 PM with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)3 confirmed that the incident between the 2 residents had occurred on 11/20/22 at 10:00 PM and was not reported to the state agency within the 2 hour time frame as required. During an interview on 03/21/23 at 03:38 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) could not find documentation to ensure the altercation between R1 and R2 was reported to the state agency within the required 2 hours. At this time, the surveyor also made the DON aware that the 5 day follow up was late and was sent to the state agency on 12/02/22 at 18:44 (6:44 PM) more than the 5 days as required.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations and interviews, the facility failed to provide personal care to Resident (R)7 within a time...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations and interviews, the facility failed to provide personal care to Resident (R)7 within a timely manner, prior to a Dialysis appointment. 1 of 1 resident reviewed for activities of daily living (ADL)s. Findings include: R7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including, but not limited to end stage renal disease, type 2 diabetes, and muscle weakness. Review of the Annual Mininum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 12/20/22 revealed R7 has a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13 out of 15, which indicates they are cognitively intact. R7 requires extensive assistance with ADLs. An observation and interview on 03/20/23 at 10:46 AM with R7 revealed them lying in bed in a T-shirt and pajama bottoms. R7 stated the facility has been short staffed on the weekends and at times during the week as well. There have been times that I have had to wait for someone to help me go to the bathroom for over an hour. Right now I am wet and I've been waiting for someone to come back to help me get dressed so I can go to Dialysis. Upon exit of R7's room on 03/20/23 at 11:06 AM, transport staff was waiting at the door to transfer R7 from the facility to their Dialysis appointment. Transport staff then went to alert facility staff that resident needed to use restroom and get dressed for appointment. An observation on 03/20/23 at 11:10 AM revealed 2 nursing staff went to assist R7 with ADL care. Further observation on 03/20/23 at 11:14 AM revealed Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA)1 entering R7's room to assist with care. During an interview on 03/20/23 at 11:15 AM, CNA1 stated that they were helping with another resident, in another room, and was unaware that R7 had to use the restroom or go to an appointment. CNA1 further stated that the facility is short on nursing aides today, because someone called out. An observation on 03/20/23 at 11:18 AM of R7 revealed them exiting their room with transportation staff to transport to their Dialysis appointment. A phone interview on 03/20/23 at 2:57 PM with R7's Resident Representative (RR) revealed R7 has had to wait long periods of time to be changed or assisted to the restroom. This has been ongoing for months. R7 is able to use the toilet however, if staff came in a decent time, R7 wouldn't have to use his brief or wet himself. I haven't been able to visit him because I live far away, but when R7 calls me about being left wet, I call the facility and tell them they need to change him. However, I'm told that he only has to wait for a long time because it's a shift change or before mealtime, so it takes a while at times. Record review of R7's Care Plan last revised 12/5/22, revealed R7 has bowel and bladder incontinence with the potential for constipation. Interventions are to check routinely for incontinence, change clothing as needed after incontinence episodes, monitor and document bowel movement, and monitor/document for signs of Urinary Tract Infection (UTI). An interview on 03/21/23 at 3:25 PM with the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed that the facility has been working 1:1 with this resident related to his concerns of having to wait a long time to receive care. The DON further stated that they have been reviewing the cameras when the resident calls for help to document call light response times because the resident can over-exaggerate how long he has to wait for help at times. The DON confirmed staff are expected to answer and respond to call lights in a timely manner.
Oct 2022 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the facility policy, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure Resident(R)33 was invited t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**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 ensure Resident(R)33 was invited to attend care planning meetings and to have input on focused care areas, goals and interventions recognized by the facility for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for care planning. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Comprehensive Care Plans dated Sept. 2022 revealed . The comprehensive care plan will be prepared by an interdisciplinary team, that's includes, but is not limited to: . d. The resident and the resident representative, to the extent practicable. R33 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 08/22/22 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14 out of 15, indicated she was cognitively intact. During an interview on 10/16/22 at 1:28 PM, R33 stated that she was not invited to care plans and did not know what a care plan was. Review on 10/18/22 of the medical record for R33 revealed no care planning attendance sheet nor any documentation indicating resident's refusal to attend the care plan meeting. During an interview on 10/18/22 at 11:37 AM with the Social Services Director (SSD) revealed that the resident does not go to care plan meetings because the resident refuses. The SSD had no documentation of resident refusing to attend care plan meetings. During an interview on 10/18/22 at 11:52 AM with the Care Plan Coordinator (CPC) revealed that she has only been working at the facility for two weeks. The CPC revealed that prior to her working, a regional employee was taking care of all the care plans. When asked to provide sign in sheets for the care plan meetings, she revealed that there was none that she knew of. There was no documentation of care plan meetings for this resident. During an interview on 10/18/22 at 12:45 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) provided documentation of one email from R33's daughter, as well as a Payer Source Verification for Therapy. The DON did not provide documentation of refusal of attending care plan meetings. The DON also did not provide documentation of care plan meeting sign-in sheets.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on review of the facility policy titled, Medication Storage, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure expired medications and biologicals were removed from 2 of 2 treatment ca...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on review of the facility policy titled, Medication Storage, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure expired medications and biologicals were removed from 2 of 2 treatment carts and not stored with other medications and biologicals for resident use on 2 of 2 halls, [NAME] and Rose. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Medication Storage, number 8 states, Unused Medications: The pharmacy and all medication rooms are routinely inspected by the consultant pharmacist for discontinued, outdated, defective and or deteriorated medications with worn, illegible or missing labels. These medications are destroyed in accordance with our Destruction of Unused Drugs Policy. An observation on 10/18/22 at 9:40 AM of the treatment cart on [NAME] Hall revealed, 2 bottles of DUKAL Iodoform sterile wound packing medicated gauze, Lot A28421. One bottle contained an open date, but no expiration date. The second bottle did not contain an open date or an expiration date. Further observation on 10/19/22 at 9:40 AM of the treatment cart on [NAME] Hall revealed 1 packaged sheet of Aqua Derm Wound Dressing 5 x 9 Lot# B21040960 with an expiration date of 06/01/24, opened and partially used, no longer sterile, and placed back on the treatment cart for use. An observation on 10/18/22 at 10:00 AM of the treatment cart on the [NAME] Hall revealed 2 bottles of DUKAL sterile Iodoform wound packing, medicated gauze with Corp. Ref 273 - Lot A25320. One bottle was opened and partially used, without an expiration date. The second bottle was unopened with no expiration date. Further review of the treatment cart revealed an opened DermaRite dressing, no longer sterile, 4 x 4 with lot #F-20220508 that expires on 05/07/25. One bottle of T/Gel Shampoo Original Formula - manufactured by Neutrogena, 1 application expired on 8/22/22, and one bottle 16 fluid ounces of Instant Hand Sanitizer with Vitamin E, Lot #00206A expired on 3/2022. An interview on 10/18/22 at 1:10 PM with the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed the findings. The DON stated that she spoke with the pharmacy and was told that the Iodoform should not be put back into the bottle for resident use once it is pulled out and cut. She also stated the pharmacy representative told her that the medication does not expire. The pharmacy provided a copy of the safety data sheet for DUKAL Iodoform packing strips. The section titled, Storage Section 7 states, Non-hazardous storage: Store in original package. Discard used portion. Do not reuse. No special storage conditions required. The safety data sheet did not indicate that the Iodoform does not expire.
CONCERN (D)

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

Garbage Disposal (Tag F0814)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on review of the facility policy, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to maintain the dumpster area in a sanitary manner to prevent the harborage of pests for 1 out of 2 dumpsters....

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on review of the facility policy, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to maintain the dumpster area in a sanitary manner to prevent the harborage of pests for 1 out of 2 dumpsters. Findings Include: Review of the facility policy titled, Disposal of Garbage and Refuse with an implementation date of March 2022 revealed, Policy: The facility shall properly dispose of kitchen garbage and refuse. Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: 7. Refuse containers and dumpsters kept outside the facility shall be designed and constructed to have tightly fitting lids, doors, or covers. Containers and dumpsters shall be kept covered when not being loaded. During the initial kitchen tour on 10/16/2022 at 11:36 AM, observations were made of the facility's dumpster area. There were 2 large dumpsters and a large recycle bin labeled Cardboard Only. Of the two dumpsters, one dumpster did not have a lid. In an interview on 10/16/2022 at 12:10 PM, the Kitchen Manager (KM) verified the lid was missing on one of the two dumpsters. The KM further stated the garbage man broke it. In an interview on 10/19/2022 at 12:02 PM, the Administrator revealed she was unaware of the missing lid on the dumpster and they just made her aware of it.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0558 (Tag F0558)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on review of the facility policy, observations, record reviews, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure 4 of 8 residents, (Resident (R)13, R68, R53, and R73), had their call light within r...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on review of the facility policy, observations, record reviews, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure 4 of 8 residents, (Resident (R)13, R68, R53, and R73), had their call light within reach. Findings Include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Call Lights: Accessibility and Timely Response dated August 2022, revealed, Policy: The purpose of this policy is to assure the facility is adequately equipped with a call light at each residents' bedside . to allow residents to call for assistance. Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: 1. All staff will be educated on . ensuring resident access to call light. 5. With each interaction in the resident's room or bathroom, staff will ensure the call light is within reach of resident and secured, as needed. Review of R13's Face Sheet located in the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed an admission date of 07/07/2022 with medical diagnosis that included acute and chronic respiratory failure, end stage renal disease, presence of cardiac pacemaker, and anemia in chronic kidney disease. Review of R13's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 10/12/2022 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12 out of 15, which indicated the resident was moderately impaired and required extensive assistance with one person physical assist with bed mobility, transfers, toilet use, and personal hygiene. Review of R13's Care Plan with a review date of 10/13/2022 revealed The resident is at risk for falls [related to] r/t weakness, impaired balance, poor endurance, potential medication effects, [history]hx of falls with interventions that included Be sure the resident's call light is within reach and encourage the resident to use it for assistance as needed. The resident needs prompt response to all requests for assistance. Review of R68's Face Sheet located in the EMR revealed an admission date of 09/15/2022 with medical diagnoses that included encephalopathy, abnormalities of gait and mobility, cognitive communication deficit, and aphasia. Review of R68's admission MDS with an ARD of 09/21/2022 revealed a BIMS score of 12 out of 15, which indicated the resident was moderately impaired and required extensive assistance with one person physical assist with bed mobility, dressing, toilet use, and personal hygiene. Review of R68's Care Plan with a review date of 10/03/2022 revealed The resident is at risk for falls r/t impaired mobility weakness and short term memory loss with interventions that included Call light within reach and encourage the resident to use it, if not cognitively impaired, for assistance as needed. Review of R53's Face Sheet located in the EMR revealed an admission date of 11/18/2021 with medical diagnoses that included ulcer of intestine, ulcerative colitis, altered mental status, Dementia, psychotic disturbance, and anxiety. Review of R53's Medicare 5-day MDS with an ARD of 09/11/2022 revealed a BIMS score of 14 out of 15, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact and required extensive assistance with two person physical assist with bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toilet use, and personal hygiene. Review of R73's Face Sheet located in the EMR revealed an admission date of 06/25/2021 with medical diagnoses that included type 2 diabetes, dysphagia, oropharyngeal phase, edema, and cognitive communication deficit. Review of R73's quarterly MDS with an ARD of 09/25/2022 revealed a BIMS score of 8 out of 15, which indicated the resident was moderately impaired and required extensive assistance with two person physical assist with bed mobility, transfers, and toilet use. Review of R73's Care Plan with a review date of 10/16/2022 revealed [R73] is at risk for falls r/t [cerebrovascular accident] CVA with residual effects, incontinence, Psychoactive drug use with interventions that included Call light within reach and encourage the resident to use it, if not cognitively impaired, for assistance as needed. During an observation on 10/19/2022 at 10:30 AM, R13's call light was on the floor underneath the resident's bed. During an observation and interview on 10/19/2022 at 10:39 AM, R53's call light was wrapped around the right bed rail and on the floor. R53 revealed that she could not find her call light and she does not receive assistance until someone comes to check on her and this has happened in the past. R53 further revealed, Staff don't make sure that I can reach my call light, they just change my brief and leave. During an observation and interview on 10/19/2022 at 10:45 AM, R73's call light was on the floor to the right side of the bed. R73 stated I don't use my call light, I just yell for them. During a random observation on 10/20/2022, R68's call light was wrapped around the side rail hanging off the side of the bed, out of the resident's reach. An interview on 10/19/2022 at 10:48 AM with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)1 revealed there have been no issues with the call lights on this unit. No residents or staff have notified me of any complaints regarding call lights on the floor. An interview on 10/19/2022 at 10:50 AM with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA)2 revealed when my shift gets here in the morning, we have some issues with call lights not accessible to the residents. Before I leave a resident's room, I make sure they have their call light. An interview on 10/19/2022 at 10:53 AM with Housekeeping staff (HK)1 and HK2 revealed sometimes when we clean rooms the residents have asked us to move their call light closer so they can reach it. An interview on 10/19/2022 at 11:30 AM with the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed sometimes we get residents expressing concerns about response time but not about them (call lights) being in reach. The call lights should always be accessible to residents. That's the way the residents can call for help. Before the staff leave the residents room, they should be making sure the call light is in reach.
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 review of the facility policy, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to provide food storage in a safe manner in 1 of 1 main kitchen. This had the potential to affect all resident...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on review of the facility policy, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to provide food storage in a safe manner in 1 of 1 main kitchen. This had the potential to affect all residents who consume food from the kitchen. Findings Include: Review of the facility policy titled, Date Marking for Food Safety with an implementation date of March 2022, revealed Policy: The facility adheres to a date marking system to ensure the safety of ready-to-eat, time/temperature control for safety food. Policy Explanation and Complaisance for Staffing: 6. The head cook, or designee, shall be responsible for checking the refrigerator daily for food items that are expiring, and shall discard accordingly. Review of the facility policy titled, Sanitation Inspection with an implementation date of March 2022, revealed Policy: It is the policy of this facility, as part of the department's sanitation program, to conduct inspections to ensure food services areas are clean, sanitary and in compliance with . Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: 4. Sanitation inspections will be conducted in the following manner: Daily. Food service staff shall inspect refrigerators/coolers, freezers storage area temperatures 5. Inspections will be conducted but not limited to the following areas: c. Refrigerator. Review of the Kitchen Inspection Audit form dated 09/22/2022 revealed the last inspection documented was performed on 09/18/2022. An observation during the initial kitchen walk through on 10/16/2022 at 11:36 AM revealed the following: 1. A case containing approximately 15 tomatoes in the refrigerator. The tomatoes appeared to be rotten with broken skin and leaking, the tomatoes also appeared to be moldy with a white and black fuzzy substance covering parts of all the tomatoes. 2. A tray containing 2 personalized cups of dressing. 1 cup spilled over with the dressing leaking on to the tray and both cups not properly covered. In an interview on 10/16/2022 at 11:45 AM with the Kitchen Manager (KM), verified the tomatoes and dressing, which were removed by the KM and discarded. In an interview on 10/19/2022 at 12:02 PM with the Administrator, revealed they are supposed to being doing audits everyday to monitor those things. The tomatoes are something that they overlooked. The Administrator further stated she was not able to get in touch with the KM to get clarification on why the last documented inspection on the Kitchen Inspection Audit form was 09/18/2022.
Jun 2021 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide appropriate oxygen care to Resident #52 for 1 of 1 observed. Resident #52 was admitted to this facility on 09/10/2020...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide appropriate oxygen care to Resident #52 for 1 of 1 observed. Resident #52 was admitted to this facility on 09/10/2020 with diagnoses including but not limited to Respiratory Disorder, Pressure Ulcer of Sacral Region (Stage 3), Iron deficiency Anemia, Pain, Anxiety Disorder, Blister of Thorax, Impacted Cerumen, Encounter for Prophylactic Measures, Allergic Rhinitis, Changes in Skin Texture, Dry Eye Syndrome, Diarrhea, Nutrition Deficiency, Encounter for Palliative Care, and Hypertension. An observation and interview on 06/15/21 at 12:50 PM with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 revealed that the tubing and humidifier was dated 6/6/21 and the water bottle/humidifier was empty, and the filter of the oximeter needed changing. A record review on 6/15/2021 at approximately 2:30 PM revealed a Physician Order to Change 02 tubing and humidifier every Tuesday-order dated 6/15/2021.
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

  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Grade B+ (85/100). Above average facility, better than most options in South Carolina.
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most South Carolina facilities.
  • • 39% turnover. Below South Carolina's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • 11 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
Bottom line: Generally positive indicators. Standard due diligence and a personal visit recommended.

About This Facility

What is Angel Oak Nursing And Rehabilitation Center, Llc's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns Angel Oak Nursing And Rehabilitation Center, LLC an overall rating of 5 out of 5 stars, which is considered much above average nationally. Within South Carolina, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.

How is Angel Oak Nursing And Rehabilitation Center, Llc Staffed?

CMS rates Angel Oak Nursing And Rehabilitation Center, LLC's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 39%, compared to the South Carolina average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Angel Oak Nursing And Rehabilitation Center, Llc?

State health inspectors documented 11 deficiencies at Angel Oak Nursing And Rehabilitation Center, LLC during 2021 to 2024. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm and 10 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Angel Oak Nursing And Rehabilitation Center, Llc?

Angel Oak Nursing And Rehabilitation Center, LLC is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by SIMCHA HYMAN & NAFTALI ZANZIPER, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 88 certified beds and approximately 80 residents (about 91% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.

How Does Angel Oak Nursing And Rehabilitation Center, Llc Compare to Other South Carolina Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in South Carolina, Angel Oak Nursing And Rehabilitation Center, LLC's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 2.9, staff turnover (39%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Angel Oak Nursing And Rehabilitation Center, Llc?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "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?"

Is Angel Oak Nursing And Rehabilitation Center, Llc Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, Angel Oak Nursing And Rehabilitation Center, LLC has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 5-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in South Carolina. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.

Do Nurses at Angel Oak Nursing And Rehabilitation Center, Llc Stick Around?

Angel Oak Nursing And Rehabilitation Center, LLC has a staff turnover rate of 39%, 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 Angel Oak Nursing And Rehabilitation Center, Llc Ever Fined?

Angel Oak Nursing And Rehabilitation Center, LLC has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.

Is Angel Oak Nursing And Rehabilitation Center, Llc on Any Federal Watch List?

Angel Oak Nursing And Rehabilitation Center, LLC 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.