PruittHealth- Rock Hill

261 S Herlong Ave, Rock Hill, SC 29732 (803) 366-7133
For profit - Corporation 132 Beds PRUITTHEALTH Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
51/100
#96 of 186 in SC
Last Inspection: January 2025

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

Overview

PruittHealth-Rock Hill has a Trust Grade of C, which means it is average and sits in the middle of the pack for nursing homes. It ranks #96 out of 186 facilities in South Carolina, placing it in the bottom half, and #4 out of 8 in York County, indicating only three local options are better. The facility is improving, with issues decreasing from 9 in 2023 to just 1 in 2025. Staffing is a strength, earning 4 out of 5 stars with a turnover rate of 37%, significantly lower than the state average, and it has more RN coverage than 96% of South Carolina facilities, which helps ensure resident safety. However, there are concerns, with $23,989 in fines which is average, and two specific incidents where residents were not adequately secured during transport, leading to injuries, and a failure to report an incident of verbal abuse between residents. Overall, while there are strengths in staffing and improvements in care, families should weigh these against the facility's past issues.

Trust Score
C
51/100
In South Carolina
#96/186
Bottom 49%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
9 → 1 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
37% turnover. Near South Carolina's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
✓ Good
$23,989 in fines. Lower than most South Carolina facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 60 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than 97% of South Carolina nursing homes. RNs are the most trained staff who catch health problems before they become serious.
Violations
⚠ Watch
14 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★☆☆
3.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★★★☆☆
3.0
Care Quality
★★★☆☆
3.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 9 issues
2025: 1 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (37%)

    11 points below South Carolina average of 48%

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.

The Bad

3-Star Overall Rating

Near South Carolina average (2.8)

Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities

Staff Turnover: 37%

Near South Carolina avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Federal Fines: $23,989

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

Chain: PRUITTHEALTH

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 14 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening
Jun 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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to prevent accidents and hazards for one (1) out of three (3) sampled residents (Resident (R)7). Findings include: Review of R7...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to prevent accidents and hazards for one (1) out of three (3) sampled residents (Resident (R)7). Findings include: Review of R7's electronic medical record revealed a Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 05/16/25, that showed the resident was admitted from the community on 1/27/25. The Brief Interview Mental Status (BIMS) revealed a score of 99, which indicated he/she had been unable to complete the cognitive test. R7 requires partial assistance with ADLs (activities of daily living) when going from sitting to lying, from a chair/bed to another chair, with toileting and sitting to standing transfer. During an observation on 06/10/25 at 9:35 AM, of R7's room, there appeared to be a spill under the bed. The spill under bed was covered with a sheet and there was an extension cord plugged into the wall lying on the floor next to R7's bed. R7 was unable to communicate verbally. In an interview on 06/10/25 at 9:36 AM, the Registered Nurse (RN)/Unit Manager stated they would have housekeeping come into the room to clean up the spill. The RN/Unit Manager stated they did not know why an extension cord was in the resident's room. The RN/Unit Manager stated they assumed it was for the portable DVD player the resident had in bed. The RN/Unit Manager stated extension cords should not be in the resident's room. In an interview on 6/11/25 at 9:30 AM, the Maintenance Director stated they had just pulled the extension cord out of the room two (2) weeks earlier. He/she educated staff on keeping an eye on rooms, making sure no extension cords were used. They followed the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) guidelines and extension cords were not allowed due to fire and safety hazards.
Sept 2023 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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

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 facility policy, the facility failed to report an allegation of resident-to-res...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to report an allegation of resident-to-resident verbal abuse that occurred between Resident (R)16 and R17, for 2 of 8 residents reviewed for resident-to-resident altercations. Findings include: A review of the facility policy titled Reporting Patient Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation, Mistreatment, and Misappropriation of Property last revised 07/29/19 revealed, It is the policy of the facility and its affiliated entities to comply with all applicable federal and state requirements regarding the reporting of patient abuse, neglect, exploitation, and misappropriation of property. Any allegation, suspicion, or identified occurrence is identified involving patient abuse, neglect, exploitation, mistreatment, and misappropriation of property, including injuries of unknown source, should be immediately reported to the provider entity. In accordance with applicable laws and regulations, the Administrator or his or her designee should notify the appropriate state agency, the patient's attending physician, and the patient's designated representative of any allegation or incident described above and of the pending investigation. The state agency should be notified of any allegations of abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of patient property, within 2 hours after the allegation is made if the events involve serious bodily injury, and not later than 24 hours after the allegation if the events do not involve or result in serious bodily injury. Review of R16's Face Sheet revealed, R16 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnoses including but not limited to hypertension, dementia without behaviors, schizoaffective disorder, major depressive disorder, and anxiety disorder. Review of R16's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date of 08/01/23, revealed R16 has the Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15 which indicates that R16 is cognitively intact. Review of R16's Progress Note dated 06/15/23 at 5:02 PM revealed, Patient had a verbal exchange with roommate that involved yelling and screaming, roommate waved her grabber stick at the patient (R16). [R16] moved to another room, since room change patient has been calm and pleasant with no verbal exchanges with new roommate. Review of R16's Progress Note dated 09/04/23 at 5:28 PM revealed, Patient spoke to Social Worker about her previous roommate. Both ladies are no longer roommates, but they are on the same unit. Patient has spoken to Social Worker about being moved further apart if possible. Patient states she and previous roommate had some heated words over the weekend. Social Worker has assessed situation and is trying to come up with possible room changes. Patient states she can get along with other resident until something is figured out. Review of R16's Care Plan last revised 08/09/22 revealed, Resident had a verbal exchange with roommate and was yelling loud enough to be heard in the hallway. Interventions include encouraging continued visits with psychiatric services to help with anger management; encouraging resident to remain calm and calling for staff to mediate between her and other residents. Review of R17's Face Sheet revealed R17 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnoses including but not limited to end-stage renal disease, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and altered mental status. Review of R17's Quarterly MDS with an ARD of 07/12/23 revealed R17 has a BIMS score of 15 out of 15 which indicates R17 is cognitively intact. Review of R17's Progress Note dated 06/13/23 at 6:56 PM revealed, Resident and roommate had verbal exchange at each other. Resident swung her grabber stick at her roommate but did not hit her. Due to a verbal altercation resident is in agreement to be moved and family was notified. Review of R17's Care Plan last revised 07/17/23 revealed, Resident had a verbal exchange with roommate and was waving grabber stick at roommate. Interventions include, continued visits with psychiatric services to help with anger management; encouraging the resident to remain calm and calling for staff to mediate between her and other residents. Review of R17's Social Services Progress Note dated 09/04/23 at 5:20 PM revealed, patient spoke to Social Worker about past roommate. Both ladies are no longer roommates but remain on the same hall. Patient is requesting that they be moved further apart. Patient states she and this other resident had some heated words over the weekend, and she did not like it. Social Worker assessed the situation and spoke to patient about possible room changes. Patient states she can get along with this resident while a plan is put into place. During an interview on 09/12/23 at 1:50 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)2 revealed, [R16] and [R17] had recently gotten into a verbal and slightly physical resident-to-resident altercation. [R16] and [R17] were previously roommates who had to be separated due to verbal altercations and disagreements. The most recent argument took place because they live on the same unit but in different rooms due to the remodeling of the facility. During the verbal altercation, [R16] and [R17] threatened to hit each other, [R16] was noted to have attempted to hit [R17] with their grabber device and had to be separated by nursing staff. Afterward, we (nursing staff) were able to move their rooms further apart but because of the remodel, we were unable to place them on different units. This incident was not reported to the state agency because staff did not want this incident to be investigated. During an interview on 09/12/23 at 2:10 PM, R17 revealed that they feel safe at the facility now but recently had issues with another resident (R16). R17 stated that R16 and her used to be roommates but had to be separated due to disagreements. R17 further stated that they still see R16 at times because they reside in the same unit and recently got into another argument where R16 threatened to hit her with their grabber stick and they had to be separated by nursing staff. R17 stated, I try to ignore her, but I am not about to let her threaten me without fighting back. During an interview on 09/12/23 at 2:20 PM, the Social Worker revealed that they did not know the extent of the verbal altercation between R16 and R17 that took place recently (09/04/23) because it took place over the weekend when they were off but spoke to both residents when they returned to work. R16 and R17 have previously had verbal disagreements and were separated as roommates however, due to the remodeling of the facility are still on the same unit. At the time of the argument on 09/04/23, they were living as next-door neighbors but R16 has since been moved further down the unit. The Social Worker further stated that they were unsure if this incident was reported to the state agency. During an interview on 09/12/23 at 3:47 PM, R16 revealed that they do not fully feel safe at the facility because of R17. R16 stated that during their verbal altercation with R17 on 09/04/23 they had to be separated by nursing staff and accidentally dislocated a nurse's arm during the separation. We didn't physically hit each other but R17 threatened to hurt me which made me scared and is why I now keep my own grabber stick with me at all times in case R17 tries to threaten me again. Observation during the interview revealed R16 had a grabber stick in their bag that is on the back of their wheelchair, R16 also demonstrated how they were swinging their grabber stick during the verbal altercation on 09/04/23. During an interview with the Director of Health Services and Administrator on 09/12/23 at an unspecified time, revealed that the verbal resident-to-resident altercations with R16 and R17 had not been reported to the state agency.
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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

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 facility policy, the facility failed to ensure a resident with a history of fal...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure a resident with a history of falls had Care Plan interventions implemented for 1 (Resident (R)9) of 3 residents reviewed for falls. This had the potential for R9 to sustain a fall with injury. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Care Plans with a revised date of 07/27/23 revealed, the comprehensive person-centered care plan is developed to include measurable goals and timeframes to meet a patient/resident's medical, nursing and psychosocial needs, the services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident; s highest practicable physical, mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment. Review of R9's Face Sheet revealed R9 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including but not limited to vascular dementia, muscle weakness, difficulty in walking, and disorientation. Review of R9's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 06/23/23 revealed, R9's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 5 out of 15 indicating R9 was severely cognitively impaired. Review of R9's Physician Orders dated 05/09/23 revealed, Fall mat x1 side of bed to prevent serious injury from falls every shift. Review of R9's Care Plan with a start date of 03/09/22 revealed, Resident has history of falling R/T cognitive loss, comorbidities, ect. Fall 5/8/23 no injuries., with a goal that R9 will remain free from significant injury due to falls through next review date. Approaches for R9's Care Plan included: Fall mat to side of bed to prevent serious injury due to fall on 5/8/23, Keep bed in lowest position with brakes locked, Keep call light in reach at all times, Provide resident an environment free of clutter, Give resident verbal reminder not to ambulate/transfer without assistance. During an observation on 09/12/23 at 3:24 PM, R9 was in his room, laying his bed. There was no fall mat in place and the bed was not in the lowest position. During an interview on 09/12/23 at 3:10 PM, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) verified there was no fall mat on R9's floor and his bed was not in the lowest position as the Care Plan indicated. During an interview on 09/12/23 at 3:58 PM, the Director of Health Services (DHS) confirmed that R9 was care planned for a fall mat and for his bed to remain in the lowest position. The DHS further stated that every shift staff should be ensuring and documenting that the components of R9's care plan are in place, and it is the responsibility of both nurses and CNAs to ensure interventions in the care plan are in place.
Apr 2023 7 deficiencies 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** Based on observation, interviews, record review, document review, facility policy review, and review of manufacturer's informati...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews, record review, document review, facility policy review, and review of manufacturer's information for the facility's wheelchair securement system, the facility failed to properly secure Resident (R)225 in the facility's transportation van while transporting the resident back to the facility following an appointment. On 10/14/2022, at approximately 2:30 PM, the Van Driver placed R225 in the facility van, securing the wheelchair in the back, locking the wheelchair brakes, and placing the lap belt on the resident, but did not secure the front of the wheelchair. Upon leaving the parking lot, the van stopped at a red light that was on an incline, and when the van started to move, the resident's wheelchair flipped backwards, causing a skin tear to the resident's right hand, abrasion to the forearm, and a knot to the back of the resident's head. R225 was then provided first aid by the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Nurse, who was also on the van for the transport, and then the wheelchair was secured in the van for transport back to the facility. On 04/19/2023 at 6:08 PM, the interim Administrator was presented with an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) template that indicated IJ existed at F689 with a start date of 10/14/2022 and an end date of 10/17/2022. Implementation of the facility's corrective action plan was verified through observation, staff interviews, and record reviews. Observation and interviews with the Van Driver and MDS Nurse revealed they had received training on how to properly secure residents in the facility van. Additional review revealed the facility failed to complete a thorough investigation of falls to determine the root cause and develop interventions for 1 (R70) of 7 residents sampled for accidents. Furthermore, the facility failed to ensure the environment remained free of accident hazards for 1 (R19) of 4 residents reviewed for medication self-administration. Specifically, staff allowed R19, who was cognitively impaired and assessed to be unable to self-administer medications, to store medication at the bedside. Findings include: 1. A review of the facility's policy titled, Transportation Guidelines, revised 01/25/2016, revealed guidance on how to provide safe transportation for patients/residents. The section for Requirements for Transporting included the following: 1. The partner shall have completed all training outlines [sic] in the Van Transportation Certification Program. A review of the facility's policy titled, Driver Authorizations, issued November 2012, revealed, Healthcare Center will maintain a system for making certain that all partners who operate or occupy a motor vehicle for transportation have been authorized by the Administrator and have met required training and qualifications. The policy also indicated, The Administrator is responsible for monitoring the compliance to this policy. A review of a facility policy titled, Wheelchair Transports, issued November 2012, revealed, The transportation partners are responsible for the implementation of this policy. The policy directed staff on the steps to take for Safe use of Wheelchairs, including the following instructions regarding strapping the wheelchair down in the transportation van: When securing a wheelchair, attach the four tie down straps to the securement points provided on the wheelchair. Tighten the straps to remove all slack. A review of a facility policy titled, Competency Requirements for Van Drivers, issued November 2012, revealed, Healthcare Centers recognize the importance of having competent partners that have received training and education related to providing transportation services. Responsible Parties: The Administrator is responsible for monitoring compliance to this policy. Education Requirements: Wheelchairs: Transportation Aide has completed the wheelchair training by the approved trainer. The policy indicated this training would be completed upon hire and annually. A review of the undated manufacturer's information from the facility's wheelchair securement system revealed the product was designed to make transportation safer for passengers with special needs. The manufacturer's information also indicated, As transportation professionals, you are responsible for the safety and welfare of your passengers. That's why it's extremely important to learn the correct way to secure passengers and their wheelchairs and comply with the regulations that apply to you. Section 4: Securing the Wheelchair revealed, Correctly securing a wheelchair is extremely important for the safety and comfort of the passenger as well as your own peace of mind. Injury or death may result from improper securement. A review of R225's Resident Face Sheet revealed the resident was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including vitamin D deficiency, muscle weakness, and difficulty walking. A review of R225's admission MDS, dated [DATE], revealed R225 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15, indicating the resident was cognitively intact. The MDS also indicated R225 used a wheelchair for mobility. A review of R225's Resident Progress Notes, dated 10/14/2022, revealed that during the transport back to the facility from their dialysis appointment, R225's wheelchair flipped backwards, and R225 sustained a golf-ball size area to the back of the head, an abrasion to the right elbow, and a skin tear on the left hand. During an interview on 04/19/2023 at 8:42 AM with the Van Driver, he stated that prior to 10/14/2022 he had only driven the facility's van four or five times and had always had a certified nursing assistant (CNA) present with him to secure the residents in the van. The Van Driver said on 10/14/2022 he picked up R225 from an appointment, and when he was securing R225's wheelchair into the van, the resident asked him not to secure the front of the wheelchair. He said once they were in route to the facility, they had to stop at a red light, which was on an incline, and when he put the van into motion, the resident's wheelchair flipped backwards. He said he then pulled the van over and the MDS Nurse, who was also present on the van, checked on the resident and provided first aid. The Van Driver said they then set up the wheelchair and he fully secured the resident's wheelchair in the van and transported the resident back to the facility. He said the reason R225's wheelchair flipped backwards was because he failed to fully secure the resident's wheelchair when he did not secure the front of the wheelchair. He said that he did not recall ever being checked off on how to transport or secure residents prior to the incident on 10/14/2022. During an interview on 04/19/2023 at 9:45 AM with the MDS Nurse, she stated 10/14/2022 was the first time she ever transported a resident. She indicated the administrator at that time asked her to go along for the transport because they did not have any other staff available to go with the Van Driver. The MDS Nurse said she had not received any training on transporting residents prior to this incident, and she was just along for the ride, and did not provide any assistance to the Van Driver in securing R225's wheelchair. She said she relied on the Van Driver to know how to properly secure the resident. The MDS Nurse said after R225 finished their dialysis appointment, the Van Driver loaded the resident and wheelchair in the facility van and secured the back wheels. She said she overheard R225 tell the driver not to lock down the front of the wheelchair. She said she saw the driver secure the wheelchair, but he did not secure the front of the wheelchair. She said that on the drive back to the facility, they stopped at a red light that was on an incline, and when the Van Driver began moving again after the light changed, the resident's wheelchair flipped backwards. She said they immediately pulled the van over, and she assessed the resident. She said the resident had a skin tear on the right hand, an abrasion to the elbow, and a small knot on the back of the head. She provided first aid to the resident, then they raised the wheelchair back up, and the Van Driver fully secured the wheelchair and they returned to the facility, where she gave a report to the nurse. On 04/19/2023 at 3:15 PM, the Van Driver demonstrated how to secure a wheelchair in the facility van. He said that on 10/14/2022, he secured the back of the wheelchair, locked the brakes, and placed the long seat belt on the resident, but did not secure the front of the wheelchair because the resident requested for him not to. During an interview on 04/21/2023 at 11:52 AM, the MDS Nurse stated she should have reminded the Van Driver and the resident of the importance of properly securing the wheelchair, and she should have reached out to her supervisor when she realized the resident had not been properly secured in the van. During an interview on 04/21/2023 at 12:39 PM, the interim Director of Health Services (DHS) stated she thought they should have provided some more training to the staff regarding transporting residents. She said they did not use the van for transports at this time. During an interview on 04/19/2023 at 11:38 AM with the Administrator, she stated that since the incident on 10/14/2022, they had used an outside transportation company for all transporting needs of the residents. The facility van had not been used since the incident on 10/14/2022. The facility's undated Plan of Correction developed following the 10/14/2022 incident included the following corrective actions: 1. [Van Driver] is not to transport any longer. 2. All transport personnel are not to drive van until full completion of required education/competency and DMV [Department of Motor Vehicle] checks are completed. 3. Scenario education to be provide when a resident refuses safety devices-Van is NOT to transport under any circumstances. 4. Scenario education on what to do when an event occurs; - Immediately stop the van in a safe location- - Call Administrator and 911 - Have EMS [emergency medical services] to evaluate-if resident refuses to seek medical attention have resident transported back to facility by EMS. - Immediate inspection and re-enactment need to occur to determine root cause related to any accidents/incidents. 2. Review of the facility's policy titled, Occurrences, revised 11/29/2022, revealed, Investigation and Follow-up: 1. Occurrence investigation and follow-up is a joint responsibility within the healthcare center. 2. Communication between all parties is essential for identifying the events and circumstances that resulted in the occurrence and for identifying interventions that limit the risk of occurrence being repeated. The policy further indicated, 6. Director of Health Services will be responsible to review each occurrence for thorough investigation, documenting the investigation on the patient/resident care software occurrence report and appropriate care plan interventions are put in place to decrease risk for repeated occurrences. 7. The Administrator or designee will complete the supervisor investigation on all occurrences. A review of R70's Resident Face Sheet revealed the facility admitted the resident with diagnoses that included difficulty in walking, dizziness and giddiness, repeated falls, and muscle weakness. A review of R70's admission MDS, dated [DATE], revealed R70 had a BIMS score of 15 out of 15, indicating the resident was cognitively intact. R70 had no history of falls on admission. R70 required limited assistance of one person for transfers. R70 was unsteady during transitions and walking and was only able to stabilize with staff assistance. A review of R70's comprehensive Care Plan, revealed a care plan addressing Falls, dated 11/14/2022. The falls care plan indicated R70 was at risk for falling R/T [related to] requiring assistance with ADLs [activities of daily living], incontinence of bowel and bladder, seizure disorder. A review of a Progress Note, dated 11/11/2022 at 7:17 PM, indicated R70 slid to the floor from the bed during an attempt to toilet without assistance. A review of a Progress Note, dated 11/21/2022 at 5:20 PM, revealed R70 was observed sitting on the bathroom floor at 4:15 PM. R70 reported to staff they were attempting to self-toilet and slipped and fell. A review of a Progress Note, dated 12/03/2022 at 6:49 PM, indicated the CNA assigned to R70 notified staff the resident slid out of their wheelchair while attempting to self-transfer. A review of a Progress Note, dated 12/14/2022 at 8:16 AM, indicated R70 had gotten out of the bed, walked to the bathroom without assistance, and fell. A review of a Progress Note, dated 01/18/2023 at 2:25 PM, revealed R70 was observed sitting on the floor beside the bed. R70 reported to staff they were trying to reach an item on top of their bedside table and slid to the floor. R70 verbalized they landed on their buttocks and denied hitting their head. On 04/18/2023 at 12:50 PM, the Administrator said they had provided all investigations or incident reports for R70 for November 2022 through the current date. She confirmed there were no fall investigations for R70's falls on 11/11/2022, 11/21/2022, 12/03/2022, 12/14/2022, and 01/18/2023. During an interview on 04/18/2023 at 2:18 PM with the Administrator, she stated she expected the staff to start an investigation when a resident had a fall. During an interview on 04/19/2023 at 2:03 PM with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)1, she stated R70 liked to be independent and would try to go to the bathroom without assistance. She said they tried to re-direct the resident and remind the resident to ask for assistance. She said for falls, a root cause should be identified, and interventions would be put in place to keep the resident safe. During an interview on 04/21/2023 at 12:39 PM with the interim DHS, she stated she needed to know immediately if a resident had a fall so she could conduct an investigation. During an interview on 04/21/2023 at 1:07 PM with the Area [NAME] President (VP), he stated he expected the staff to follow the facility's fall policy, conduct investigations, and implement interventions to keep the residents safe. 3. A review of a facility policy titled, Self-Administration of Medications by Patients/Residents, revised on 01/24/2020, revealed, Each patient/resident who desires to self-administer medication is permitted to do so if the healthcare center's Licensed Nurse and physician have determined that the practice would be safe for the patient/resident and other patients/residents of the healthcare center. A review of the Resident Face Sheet revealed the facility had admitted R19 with Parkinson's disease, muscle weakness, dementia, generalized anxiety, intercostal pain, and collapsed vertebrae. A review of the quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], indicated R19 had a BIMS score of 3 out of 15, which indicated the resident had severely impaired cognition. The MDS revealed the resident had impaired vision and was only able to see large print. R19 required extensive assistance of staff for bed mobility, dressing, and personal hygiene and required supervision for eating. Further review of the MDS revealed a staff assessment for pain was not conducted for the resident. The resident's care plan, dated 02/28/2023, indicated R19 had self-care deficits related to poor cognition and the resident's physical status. The facility developed an intervention that directed staff to observe the resident for signs and symptoms of discomfort during care. A review of R19's Self-Administration of Medication assessment, dated 11/17/2022, indicated based on the assessment, it was not appropriate for the resident to self-administer medications; subsequently, the resident would not be storing medications. Observations made on 04/17/2023 at 10:05 AM, 04/18/2023 at 1:57 PM, and 04/19/2023 at 8:30 AM revealed a tube of generic arthritis pain gel was seen in the resident's room. A review of R19's Physician Order Report revealed the resident had an order for a Lidocaine self-adhesive patch applied to the skin for pain and for Voltaren arthritis pain gel to be applied twice a day for pain. There was no documented evidence the resident had an order to self-administer medications, to keep medications at the bedside, or for R19 to have a generic arthritis pain gel. CNA17 was interviewed on 04/19/2023 at 9:10 AM and stated if she saw medication at a resident's bedside, she would remove the medication and give the medication to the nurse. The CNA stated she would be scared a wandering resident may get the medication. She stated there was one resident who wandered on the unit where R19 resided who had been seen going in and out of other residents' rooms. Registered Nurse (RN)19 was interviewed on 04/20/2023 at 1:45 PM. The nurse was aware of the pain cream at R19's bedside. RN19 stated a family member gave the resident the pain cream. RN19 stated she had tried to educate the family, but the family continued to bring the medication to the resident. The DHS was interviewed on 04/21/2023 at 11:57 AM. The DHS stated a resident with a BIMS score of 3, such as R19, would not be competent to self-administer medications. She stated she expected staff to immediately remove any over-the-counter medications from the room. The DHS further stated if the family continued to bring medication and leave it at the resident's bedside, she expected the nurse to educate the family. If the family continued to bring in medication, she expected the nurse to report the situation to the DHS. According to the DHS, she had received no reports regarding the over-the-counter medication in R19's room.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0554 (Tag F0554)

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 review of facility policy,the facility failed to assess 1 (Resident (R)25)...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, record review, and review of facility policy,the facility failed to assess 1 (Resident (R)25) of 4 residents to determine their capability to self-administer medications. Findings include: A review of the facility's policy titled, Self-Administration of Medications by Patients/Residents, revised on 01/28/2020, indicated, Each patient/resident who desires to self-administer medication is permitted to do so if the healthcare center's Licensed Nurse and physician have determined that the practice would be safe for the patient/resident and other patient/residents of the healthcare center. Medication self-administration also applies to family members who wish to administer medication. 2. If the patient/resident or family member desires to self-administer medications, an assessment is conducted by the Licensed Nurse to assess the individual's cognitive, physical, and visual ability to carry out this responsibility. Also, the resident or family member should, in conjunction with the facility nurse, utilize the Electronic Medical Record Observation tool, Medication Self-Administration Observation to complete the administration of the medication. 3. If the Licensed nurse determines the patient/resident or family member are capable of self-administration of medications, the attending physician must write an order to that effect that includes the specific medications based off of the Self-Administration Medication Observation. A review of the Resident Face Sheet for R25 revealed the facility admitted the resident with diagnoses that included Parkinson's disease, depression, muscle spasms, seizures, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, and diabetes with diabetic neuropathy. A review of the significant change in status Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], revealed R25 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 9, indicating the resident was moderately cognitively impaired. The MDS indicated R25 had verbal behaviors that occurred daily. The resident required extensive assistance with bed mobility, transfer, dressing, toilet use, and personal hygiene. The resident required supervision for locomotion on and off the unit and with eating. The resident was identified as having a functional limitation in range of motion on one side of the upper extremities and lower extremities. A review of R25's care plan, dated 05/09/2019, revealed the resident had alterations in thought process related to a diagnosis of traumatic brain injury. The care plan also indicated the resident had self-care deficits due to a traumatic brain injury, generalized weakness, muscle spasms, impaired mobility, and tremors. The facility developed an intervention that directed staff to administer the resident's medications as ordered. A review of R25's Physician Order Report revealed an order started on 09/08/2022 to administer Miralax 17 grams of powder mixed with eight ounces of water once per day at 9:00 AM for constipation. There was no documented evidence that R25 had an order to self-administer the medication On 04/18/2023 at 8:02 AM, Registered Nurse (RN)19 was observed giving R25 morning medications. The nurse gave R25 pills, which the resident took without any problems. RN19 then gave R25 a cup that contained Miralax and water. R25 drank approximately 25% of the Miralax and set the cup on the over-bed table. The RN stated she would leave the Miralax at the bedside for the resident to drink later. The RN left the room and R25 left the room also, accompanied by another staff member. An interview was held with RN19 on 04/18/2023 at 1:45 PM. She stated medications were not left in the room because the nurse needed to make sure all the medications were taken. The nurse acknowledged she had left the cup of Miralax in R25's room because she wanted the resident to take time and drink all the medication. RN19 stated Miralax was a medication, and she should not have left the medication in the resident's room. The nurse stated the resident had not been assessed for self-administration of medication. The Director of Health Services (DHS) was interviewed on 04/21/2023 at 11:57 AM. The DHS stated before a resident was able to self-administer medications, an order from the physician was required. Additionally, the resident received education, and staff needed to make sure the resident was competent to self-administer medication. The Area [NAME] President was interviewed on 04/21/2023 at 12:59 PM. He stated he expected the staff to follow the facility policy on self-administration of medications and make sure self-administration was possible for the individual resident.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0559 (Tag F0559)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide written notice to the resident an...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide written notice to the resident and/or the resident's representative prior to a room change for 1 (Resident (R)223) of 1 sampled resident reviewed for a room change. Findings include: Review of a facility policy titled, Room or Roommate Changes, revised on 12/06/2022, indicated, It is our policy to inform patients/residents in advance of any change in room or roommate and allow patients/residents the opportunity to have input in the decision. A review of R223's Face Sheet indicated the facility admitted the resident with diagnoses that included endocarditis (an infection of a heart valve), supraventricular tachycardia (an abnormally fast heartbeat), and an abscess of the abdominal wall. An admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], revealed R223 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 3, which indicated severe cognitive impairment. The MDS indicated the resident required extensive to total assistance from staff for all activities of daily living. Review of R223's Care Plan, revised on 05/10/2022, indicated the resident had dementia, difficulty understanding others, and impaired cognitive skills for decision making. A review of a Resident Census sheet indicated that on 05/16/2022 at 4:33 PM, R223 was moved from room [ROOM NUMBER]-A to room [ROOM NUMBER], which was designated as a private room. A review of R223's Resident Progress Notes indicated that on 05/16/2022 at 4:39 PM, Social Worker (SW) 6 met with R223's Resident Representative (RR)40 and discussed the resident's discharge plans and answered questions RR40 may have had. There was no documentation in the progress notes that indicated the room change was discussed. A telephone interview was held with RR39 on 04/17/2023 at 3:42 PM. RR39 stated that while R223 lived at the facility there had been a room change, and she had not been notified prior to the room change. SW14 was interviewed on 04/20/2023 at 9:03 AM. The SW stated that when a room change was planned, the resident and resident representatives were given as much notice as possible. SW14 stated that generally the discussion about a room change was documented in the progress notes. SW14 did not state that written notification was provided prior to a room change. SW14 stated she was unable to remember why R223's room had been changed. Registered Nurse (RN)16 and SW6 were interviewed on 04/20/2023 at 9:30 AM. RN16 stated that on 05/16/2022, when SW6 spoke to the family about discharge plans, SW6 also spoke to the resident representative about the room change and just had not documented that part of the conversation. SW6 neither denied nor agreed with the RN's statement, but acknowledged there was no documentation the room change was discussed with RR40. The Area [NAME] President was interviewed on 04/21/2023 at 12:59 PM, in the absence of the Administrator, and stated he expected staff to follow facility policy regarding room change notifications.
CONCERN (D)

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

Grievances (Tag F0585)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to assist a resident in filing a grievance r...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to assist a resident in filing a grievance related to missing personal property and failed to ensure prompt efforts were made to resolve the issue for 1 (Resident (R)42) of 6 sampled residents reviewed for missappropriation of property. Findings include: Review of a facility policy titled, Grievances: Healthcare Centers, revised 11/21/2022, indicated, In the event a patient expresses a grievance or complaint to a staff member, one or more of the following actions will be taken: If the patient or family member requires assistance with writing the grievance, the staff person receiving the information will assist with completing the appropriate section of the Grievance/Complaint Form: Healthcare Centers. The policy indicated, The Administrator or designee will then refer the grievance to the appropriate department for investigation if it has not already been referred. Further review of the policy indicated, The Grievance/Complaint should be resolved within three business days. A review of R42's Resident Face Sheet indicated the facility admitted the resident with diagnoses that included transient cerebral ischemic attack (a temporary episode that causes symptoms similar to those of a stroke) and depression. A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], revealed R42 scored 14 out of 15 on a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS), which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. According to the MDS, R42 required extensive assistance with personal hygiene, bed mobility, dressing, and toilet use and required supervision with eating. Review of R42's Care Plan, revised on 04/04/2023, indicated the resident had a self-care deficit and required staff assistance for completion of activities of daily living. R42 was interviewed on 04/17/2023 at 9:39 AM. R42 stated they had missing clothes and a missing tube of specialty toothpaste for tooth sensitivity. The resident stated staff were informed of the missing items but did not seem to take the resident's concerns seriously. The resident stated that since the toothpaste was missing, staff suggested the resident use facility-supplied toothpaste; however, the resident could not, due to sensitivity. R42 was unable to identify the staff member to whom they reported the missing clothes and toothpaste. During an interview on 04/20/2023 at 7:59 AM, Social Worker (SW)6 stated that when residents reported missing items to staff, the staff were expected to notify their supervisor, and the supervisor was expected to notify the SW, so a search for the items could be initiated. SW6 stated if the missing items were not found, the facility replaced the items. The SW stated missing items were written up as a grievance. SW6 stated no one had reported missing items for R42. During an interview on 04/20/2023 at 9:08 AM, SW14 stated that staff usually reported when a resident was missing items. She added an email was then sent to other staff, and staff would look for the items. SW14 stated if lost items were not found, the facility replaced the lost items. SW14 stated she would check the grievance log to see if anything had been reported missing for R42, and she would speak with the resident. The grievance log did not contain documentation regarding R42's missing items. Registered Nurse (RN)19 was interviewed on 04/20/2023 at 2:03 PM. RN19 stated that on Friday, 04/14/2023, R42 told her a large tube of toothpaste brought in by the resident's family had disappeared. RN19 stated the resident had not told her about missing clothes. The RN stated she told the certified nursing assistant (CNA) who worked on the resident's hall about the missing toothpaste so the CNA could look for the toothpaste. The RN stated she had not told anyone else about the missing toothpaste, but added the SW (the RN did not specify which SW) knew about R42's missing items. The Interim Director of Health Services (DHS) was interviewed on 04/21/2023 at 12:12 PM. The Interim DHS stated that when residents reported missing items, the staff were expected to report the incident to the SW and the Interim DHS, then staff were expected to look for the items. The Interim DHS stated if the items were not found, the facility would replace the lost items. The expectation was that the staff notify the Interim DHS and SW immediately. The Area [NAME] President was interviewed on 04/21/2023 at 12:59 AM. He stated the expectation was for the staff to report the missing items to the grievance coordinator so the staff could look for the items.
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 record review, interviews, facility document review, and facility policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to thoroughly investigate an incident of injury of unknown origin f...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, interviews, facility document review, and facility policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to thoroughly investigate an incident of injury of unknown origin for 1 (Resident (R)173) of 11 residents reviewed for abuse and/or neglect. Findings include: A review of a facility policy titled, Investigation of Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation, Mistreatment, and Misappropriation of Property, revised 10/09/2020, revealed, The administrator of the provider is responsible for assuring that an accurate and timely investigation is completed. If there is an occurrence of or allegation involving patient abuse (including injuries of unknown source), neglect, exploitation, mistreatment or misappropriation of patient property, the following investigation and reporting procedures will be followed. The policy further indicated, If it appears to a reasonable person that injury of unknown cause has occurred, interviews should be conducted. Signed statements should be gathered from: staff who cared for patient just prior to and after injury; other reliable patients in the vicinity nearby area; and family or visitors who may have noticed anything. A review R173's Face Sheet revealed the resident was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included Alzheimer's disease, generalized muscle weakness, difficulty walking and hypertension. On readmission, the Face Sheet indicated R173 had sustained a fracture of the right femur (large bone in the upper leg-thigh). A review of R173's Progress Note, documented by the Nurse Practitioner (NP) on 08/23/2022 at 7:30 AM, revealed the NP received a call from a facility nurse, who told her R173 was lying in bed and complaining of right hip and knee pain. The note also indicated the resident's right leg was rotated outward, the resident would not let staff move the leg, and the resident refused to attempt to bear weight. The NP ordered x-rays of the hip and knee. A review of R173's Progress Note, documented by Registered Nurse (RN)29 on 08/23/2022 at 7:40 AM, revealed a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) reported R173 was complaining of pain during incontinence care. The RN documented the resident was guarding their right thigh. No redness or discoloration was noted. RN29 indicated she called the NP and was waiting for an order. A review of R173's Progress Note, documented by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)33 on 08/23/2022 at 8:03 AM, revealed LPN33 assessed R173 due to receiving a report from the night nurse. LPN33 documented R173 was lying in bed with their legs stretched out, and the resident's right hip and leg were rotated outward. The nurse also indicated the resident was touching their hip and complaining of pain, and limited range of motion was observed. LPN33 also documented, No known injury. A review of R173's Progress Note, documented by the NP on 08/23/2022 at 6:18 PM, revealed, Outreach Notes: Received notification from facility: X-ray results: acute mildly displaced intertrochanteric fracture in the right femur. Plan: Send to [emergency department] for evaluation and treatment. A review of R173's hospital records revealed the resident was brought in from [resident's] facility after obtaining x-ray showing right sided intratrochanteric [sic] fracture on x-ray pelvis at outside facility. Facility by report denies any falls or known injuries. A review of the 24-hour initial report sent to the state agency, dated 08/23/2022 at 8:10 PM, indicated, Resident complained of right hip pain, no known cause of hip fracture, no reported falls. X-ray was obtained and results were R [right] hip fracture, resident was transferred to hospital. Responsible party and NP made aware. Investigation initiated. A review of the investigation that was included with the facility's final report, dated 08/30/2022, included a timeline that indicated CNA27 and RN29 worked with the resident the night prior to the identification of the fracture. The facility's investigation did not include witness statements from CNA27 or RN29. The summary indicated the facility was unable to validate if a fall had or had not occurred and indicated that prior to the fracture, R173 had been able to transfer independently and was ambulatory. Furthermore, the facility documented within the investigation that the fracture could have been a result of a spontaneous fracture, as it was mildly displaced. Another area of the report indicated RN29 and CNA2 had been on duty at the time of or prior to the incident. CNA2 handwrote a witness statement that indicated she had not been working at the time of the incident. No further statements or investigation were completed to determine the origin of R173's injury. A telephone interview was held on 04/17/2023 at 1:04 PM with R173's resident representative (RR). She stated she had not gotten an answer from the facility on what caused R173's fracture. The RR stated R173 had neither a diagnosis of osteoporosis nor osteopenia. The Administrator was interviewed on 04/18/2023 at 2:10 PM. The Administrator stated she would have preferred to see much more in the investigation related to R173's injury. The Administrator presented the completed investigation for R173's fracture, which consisted of progress notes and included no interviews from staff that worked on the shift when the resident was supposed to have sustained the injury. The NP was interviewed on 04/19/2023 at 10:05 AM and described R173 as independent with transfers, toilet use, and ambulation. The NP added the resident was confused, and while the resident was supposed to use a rollator for ambulation, the resident would forget. The NP reviewed her notes and stated that on 08/23/2022, she received a call that indicated R173 was complaining about hip and knee pain and received a report the leg was rotated outward; the resident would not bear weight and would not let staff touch the leg. The NP stated she had been told by staff later that R173 had fallen. The NP stated she thought the resident had gotten up to go to the bathroom and had slipped. The Physical Therapist (PT) was interviewed on 04/19/2023 at 11:21 AM and stated R173 was physically able to ambulate around the room without a device and toileted independently. The PT stated R173 had profound dementia, and the resident's memory about using a device was impaired, adding the resident carried their walker or cane instead of using the devices. The PT stated he had heard from facility staff that R173 had fallen, while the RR told him the resident had rolled out of bed. He added the consensus of the facility was there was a fall of some kind that resulted in the fracture. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)1 was interviewed on 04/19/2023 at 2:33 PM and stated that while R173 had been provided devices for ambulation, the resident was unable to remember to use the devices. LPN 1 stated she had come into work and the day shift nurse reported R173 would not allow the CNA to complete incontinence care and was pushing the staff member away from touching the hip. LPN1 stated she assessed R173 and found the resident's hip externally rotated. The nurse stated she was unable to explain how the resident broke their hip but added there were several stories being told in the facility. LPN1 stated one story indicated R173 fell and then returned to bed independently, while another story was the resident fell out of bed, staff returned the resident to bed, and no one reported fall. LPN1 identified RN29 and CNA27 as the staff that worked with the resident on the night the injury occurred. LPN1 stated the resident walked independently and roamed throughout the building, so the resident could have fallen out of bed or could have slipped while walking. CNA2 was interviewed on 04/19/2023 at 4:42 PM. CNA2 stated she had worked with R173 on the 3:00 PM to 11:00 PM shift on 08/22/2023. CNA2 stated that when she left for home after the end of the shift, R173 was in bed and had no complaints of pain or discomfort during the shift. CNA2 stated that when she returned to work a few days later, CNA27 stated she had answered the resident's call bell, and R173 told CNA27 there had been a fall, but the resident was in bed. CNA2 stated R173 could not have gotten up independently from the floor, even without a broken hip. CNA2 stated she had also heard R173 had been in bed the entire 11:00 PM to 7:00 AM shift, and she had wondered how R173 could have sustained a broken hip. RN29 was interviewed via telephone on 04/19/2023 at 8:45 PM and acknowledged she had been assigned to care for R173 on the night shift on 08/22/2022. RN29 stated that when she arrived to work, R173 was up and ambulating independently but was a bit unsteady. RN29 stated that eventually the resident went to bed. The RN stated that a little after midnight, the resident complained of pain and was given Tylenol and added the resident remained in bed for the remainder of the shift and had slept soundly. The RN stated the next morning, 08/23/2022, R173 complained of more pain, and the NP was called, and x-rays were ordered. RN29 stated she had no knowledge of any falls, and CNA27, who cared for the resident that night, had not reported any falls and, in fact, had told her the resident had not been out of bed. A telephone interview was held with CNA27 on 04/20/2023 at 11:22 AM, and CNA27 acknowledged she had worked with R173 on the 11:00 PM to 7:00 AM shift on 08/22/2022. CNA27 stated that shortly after 11:00 PM, she went to the resident's room, and the resident told her they had fallen and were hurting and stated the resident was holding the stomach/side area. The CNA stated the resident had dementia, so it was hard to understand what they said. After the resident told the CNA about the fall, CNA27 told RN29, who was working on another unit. A telephone interview with CNA35 was held on 04/20/2023 at 12:02 PM. CNA35 stated that when she got to work at approximately 11:00 PM, R173 was already in bed. She added she assisted CNA27 with incontinence care and during care, R173 yelled, Ouch, Ouch, and they both knew something was not right with the resident. CNA35 stated R173 had not mentioned anything about falling. CNA35 stated she and CNA27 reported the resident's pain to RN29. CNA35 stated RN29 responded within a short time. CNA35 stated R173 was in bed during the entire shift starting on 08/22/2023 at 11:00 PM and ending on 08/23/2022 at 7:00 AM. The Administrator was interviewed on 04/21/2023 at 10:30 AM. She stated that in review, the investigation into R173's incident was not thorough. She stated if a thorough investigation had been completed, it would have included witness statements and enough information would be obtained to determine what happened to R173. The Administrator stated if a cause of an accident could not be determined, then the person investigating the accident/incident should drill down enough to determine a reasonable idea of what happened. She stated that with the different stories being told about what caused R173's fracture, there was no way anyone had investigated enough to determine what happened to the resident. The Director of Health Services (DHS) was interviewed on 04/21/2023 at 12:19 PM. The DHS stated a thorough investigation should include witness statements from nurses and nursing assistants working during the shift. She added if the resident had short-term and long-term memory impairment, no weight should be placed on the resident's interview. The DHS stated she had reviewed the submitted state report for R173's incident and stated the former administration had not completed a thorough investigation.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0637 (Tag F0637)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to timely complete a significant change i...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to timely complete a significant change in status Minimum Data Set (MDS) for 1 (Resident (R)173) of 33 residents whose MDS assessments were reviewed. Specifically, the facility failed to complete a significant change MDS assessment after R173 had a decline in activities of daily living due to a fall that resulted in a hip fracture on 08/23/2022. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, MDS Assessment Accuracy, revised 12/06/2022, indicated, Significant change in Status Assessment (Comprehensive) ARD [assessment reference date] must be no later than the 14th calendar day after the determination of a significant change has been made. A review of the Face Sheet revealed R173 was admitted with diagnoses that included Alzheimer's disease, generalized muscle weakness, difficulty walking, and hypertension. A review of a discharge MDS assessment, dated 08/23/2023, revealed R173 had an unplanned discharge to an acute care hospital. The MDS indicated the resident had severely impaired cognitive skills per the staff assessment for mental status. The MDS indicated the resident needed staff supervision with bed mobility, transfers, walking in the room, and eating. R173 could walk independently in the corridor and on the unit. The MDS indicated the resident had sustained no falls. A review of R173's Care Plan dated 04/15/2019, revealed the resident was at risk for falls and had a fall on 08/23/2022 that resulted in a hip fracture. A review of R173's readmission Observation Report, dated 08/27/2022, indicated the resident had to be manually lifted from the stretcher, and current health conditions included a balance problem. A Musculoskeletal assessment indicated R173 had a limitation in range of motion of the right lower extremity to include the hip and knee. The report also indicated there was weakness in both the right lower extremity and the left lower extremity. The Nurse Practitioner (NP) was interviewed on 04/19/2023 at 10:05 AM. The NP stated that prior to R173's fracture, the resident was ambulatory. The Physical Therapist (PT) was interviewed on 04/19/2023 at 11:21 AM. The PT stated that prior to the fracture, R173 was physically able to ambulate around the room without the use of any assistive device and toileted independently. After the resident returned from the hospital, the resident required maximum staff assistance to sit on the side of the bed, transfer, and with weight bearing as tolerated. A review of a significant change in status MDS, dated [DATE], approximately two months after R173's hip fracture, revealed R173 was admitted to hospice services. The MDS indicated the resident had declines in activities of daily living and now required extensive assistance with bed mobility. The MDS indicated transfers, walking, and locomotion on and off the unit had not occurred during the assessment period. The MDS indicated the resident had functional range of motion impairment of the lower extremity on one side. The Case Mix Coordinator (CMC) was interviewed on 04/21/2023 at 8:39 AM. The CMC assisted with completion of the MDS. She reviewed the MDS for R173 and reported that prior to the fracture, R173 was independent with bed mobility and transfer and only required supervision for locomotion and ambulation. The CMC stated if there were two or more improvements or declines in a resident's functional ability, a significant change in status MDS was expected to be completed within 14 days of the significant change. The CMC stated a significant change in status MDS should have been completed for R173 prior to October 2022. She stated the nurse that completed the October 2022 MDS no longer worked for the facility.
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

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive person-centered c...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan that addressed all resident care needs for 3 (Residents (R)19, R42, and R67) of 33 sampled residents whose care plans were reviewed. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure the comprehensive care plan addressed pain management for R19, oxygen therapy for R42, and the rationale, behavioral symptoms and non-pharmacological interventions related to antipsychotic medication use for R67. Findings include: Review of a facility policy titled, Care Plans, effective 12/31/1996, revealed, It is the policy of the health care center for each patient/resident to have a person centered baseline care plan followed by a comprehensive care plan developed following the completion of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) and the Care Area Assessment (CAA) portions of the comprehensive assessment according to the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual and the patient/resident choice. The policy also indicated, The comprehensive person-centered care plan is developed to include measurable goals and timeframes to meet a patient/resident's medical, nursing, and psychosocial needs, the services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment. 1. A review of R19's Resident Face Sheet revealed the facility admitted R19 with diagnoses that included Parkinson's disease, acute respiratory failure with hypoxia (low level of oxygen in the blood), wheezing, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD - a chronic inflammatory lung disease that causes obstructed airflow from the lungs). A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], revealed the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 3 out of 15, which indicated severe cognitive impairment. The MDS indicated R19 required extensive assistance with bed mobility, dressing, toilet use, and personal hygiene, and supervision with eating. The MDS also indicated R19 experienced occasional pain that was very severe, horrible and made it hard for the resident to sleep. According to the MDS, the resident received scheduled pain medication. Review of R19's Care Plan, revised on 02/23/2023, revealed the care plan did not address the resident's pain. There were no goals or interventions for pain relief. Review of R19's Physician Order Report revealed the resident had a physician's order dated 11/29/2022 for Voltaren 1% gel (an anti-inflammatory medication) to be applied to both knees twice daily for arthritis pain. Additionally, the report indicated the resident had a physician's order dated 04/10/2023 for a lidocaine (an anesthetic medication that causes numbing of the area to which it is applied) 4% adhesive patch to be applied daily for intercostal pain (pain between the ribs, in the upper chest, or upper back). The Case Mix Coordinator (CMC) was interviewed on 04/21/2023 at 8:08 AM. The CMC stated she typically added problems such as falls, medications, antibiotics, oxygen, and pain to the care plan. The CMC reviewed the care plan for R19 and stated the resident's pain should have been addressed in the care plan. The CMC stated that not care planning the resident's pain was an oversight. The Interim Director of Health Services (DHS) was interviewed on 04/21/2023 at 12:07 PM. The Interim DHS stated she expected pain to be care planned for R19. The Area [NAME] President was interviewed on 04/21/2023 at 12:59 PM and stated he expected pain to be care planned if needed. 2. A review of R42's Face Sheet revealed the facility admitted the resident with diagnoses that included acute respiratory failure with hypoxia (low oxygen level in the blood), acute bronchitis, and morbid obesity with alveolar hypoventilation (a breathing disorder that results in increased levels of carbon dioxide in the blood). A quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], revealed R42 had a score of 14 out of 15 BIMS, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. The MDS indicated R42 required extensive assistance with bed mobility, dressing, toilet use, personal hygiene, and supervision with eating. The MDS did not indicate the resident received oxygen therapy. Review of a Physician Order Report for April 2023 indicated R42 had an order dated 02/14/2023 for oxygen at two liters per minute via nasal cannula for acute respiratory failure with hypoxia. Review of R42's Care Plan, revised 04/04/2023, revealed the care plan did not address the resident's use of oxygen at two liters per minute via nasal cannula. The CMC was interviewed on 04/21/2023 at 8:21 AM. The CMC reviewed the care plan for R42 and stated the oxygen should have been captured in the care plan. The CMC indicated not addressing the oxygen therapy was an oversight. The Interim DHS was interviewed on 04/21/2022 at 12:07 PM. The Interim DHS stated she expected oxygen use to be included in the resident's care plan. The Area [NAME] President was interviewed on 04/21/2023 at 12:59 AM and stated oxygen should have been included in R42's care plan. 3. A review of R67's Face Sheet indicated the facility admitted the resident with diagnoses that included vascular dementia without behavioral disturbance, psychotic disturbance, mood disturbance, and anxiety; generalized anxiety disorder, and major depressive disorder. A quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], indicated R67 was unable to participate in the BIMS and, according to a staff assessment for mental status, had short-term and long-term memory impairment and was severely impaired in cognitive skills for daily decision-making. The MDS indicated R67 required extensive to total assistance with all activities of daily living except walking, which did not occur during the review period. According to the MDS, the resident received an antipsychotic medication and an antidepressant medication on seven days during the seven-day assessment period. Review of a Physician Order Report for April 2023, indicated R67 had an order dated 06/23/2022 for daily administration of escitalopram oxalate (an antidepressant medication) and an order dated 10/31/2022 for daily administration of Seroquel (an antipsychotic medication). Review of R67's Care Plan, revised on 03/14/2023, indicated the resident received psychotropic medications; however, the rationale for use of the medications, targeted behavioral symptoms, and non-pharmacological interventions were not addressed in the care plan. The CMC was interviewed on 04/21/2023 at 8:26 AM. The CMC stated she was not familiar with the term targeted behaviors and was not aware of R67's behavioral symptoms. She acknowledged she was responsible for care planning psychotropic medications. After reviewing R67's care plan, the CMC acknowledged the reason for antipsychotic medication use was not included. The Interim DHS was interviewed on 04/21/2022 at 12:07 PM and stated antipsychotic medications should be care planned to include the diagnosis or reason the medication was ordered for the resident, the resident's behavioral symptoms, and non-pharmacological interventions for behaviors. The Area [NAME] President was interviewed on 04/21/2023 at 12:59 PM and stated psychotropic medications should be care planned as indicated in the facility's policy direction.
Aug 2021 4 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0625 (Tag F0625)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #59 was admitted to the facility with the following diagnoses including but not limited Malignant carcinoid tumor of th...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #59 was admitted to the facility with the following diagnoses including but not limited Malignant carcinoid tumor of the sigmoid colon, Unspecified intestinal obstruction, unspecified as to partial versus complete obstruction, Perforation of intestine (nontraumatic), Colostomy status. Record review of Resident #59's record on 08/25/21 at 11:25 AM revealed the resident was transferred to the hospital on [DATE] and returned to facility on 07/02/21, transferred to the hospital on [DATE] and returned to facility on 06/25/21, and transferred to the hospital on [DATE] and returned to facility on 06/03/21. Further review of the chart revealed no documentation of the bed-hold notification to the resident and/or the resident representative. On 08/25/2021 at 2:00 PM, an interview with RN #1 revealed stated, We don't have documentation of the policy when Resident # 59 went out to the hospital. A note was made in the progress notes but there is no paperwork showing when we notify the family of the bed hold or written notice of transfer. Review of the facility's policy titled, Bed Holds and Room Reserves, policy statement stated it is the policy of PruittHealth for the healthcare center to provide written information regarding the Bed Hold Policy and allowed duration to the patient/resident and/or responsible representative prior to the patient/resident transfer .3. Upon initiation of transfer, the Charge Nurse on duty is responsible to offer the patient the bed hold option. The Bed Hold Acknowledgement Form will be presented to the patient or patient representative, and the written notice will be included in the patient's transfer packet. If the patient representative is not present, a copy of the Bed Hold Acknowledgement Form will be sent by mail to the responsible representative within one business day. Based on record review, interview and review of facility policy, the facility failed, to provide Resident #69 and #59 and/or the resident representative with a copy of the facility's bed hold policy, 2 of 3 sampled residents reviewed for hospitalization. Resident #69 and #59 transferred to the hospital and were not provided with the bed hold policy. The findings included: The facility admitted Resident #69 with diagnoses including, but not limited to, Stroke, Dysphagia and Diabetes. Record review of nurse's notes, on 08/24/21 at 09:41 AM, revealed the resident was sent out to the hospital on 7/28/21 for an acute change in condition. Further review of the notes and resident documents revealed no documentation to indicate the resident or resident representative had been provided a copy of the facility's bed hold policy at the time of the transfer. During an interview with Registered Nurse (RN) #1, on 08/24/21 at 03:45 PM with the Nursing Home Administrator present, RN #1 stated the nurse who initiates the transfer puts a copy of the bed hold policy in the packet that is sent with the resident to the hospital. RN #1 stated the nurse doesn't make a copy of the policy and put it in the resident's record. S/he also didn't think they document that the policy is provided to the resident at the time of transfer. RN #1 stated they would check to see if this is being documented. During an interview with RN #1, on 08/25/21 09:00 AM, RN #1 stated nurses are not making a copy of the bed hold policy that is sent with the resident or documenting the resident has been provided with the policy before transfer. When asked how the facility is able to ensure the bed hold policy is being provided to residents before transfer, RN #1 stated they are enable to ensure this with no documentation. RN #1 stated going forward, the facility would make a copy of the bed hold policy given to residents and/or document it has been provided at the time of transfer. Review of the facility's Bed Hold and Room Reserves policy revealed: Upon initiation of transfer, the Charge Nurse on duty is responsible to offer the patient the bed hold option. The Bed Hold Acknowledgement form will be presented to the patient or patient representative, and the written notice will be included in the patient's transfer packet.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0655 (Tag F0655)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review, interview and review of facility policy, the facility failed to develop and implement a baseline care plan within 48 hours of admission for Resident #93, 1 of 4 sampled residen...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, interview and review of facility policy, the facility failed to develop and implement a baseline care plan within 48 hours of admission for Resident #93, 1 of 4 sampled residents reviewed for falls. The findings included: The facility admitted Resident #93 on 7/30/21 with diagnoses including, but not limited to, Chronic Kidney Disease, Peripheral Vascular Disease, Coronary Artery Disease, Hypertension and Muscle Weakness. Record review on 08/25/21 at 09:11 AM revealed no baseline care plan in the resident's medical record. During an interview with Registered Nurse (RN) #1, on 08/25/21 at 09:21 AM, RN #1 stated a baseline care plan was not completed for Resident #93. During an interview with RN #2, on 08/25/21 at 09:24 AM, RN #2 stated the admitting nurse is responsible for completing the baseline care plan on admission and providing a copy to the resident and/or Resident Representative. When asked who is responsible for ensuring the baseline care plan was completed on admission, RN #2 stated the whole team is responsible. Review of the facility's Care Plans policy, on 08/25/21 at 09:47 AM, revealed: Upon a new admission, a baseline care plan will be developed by the admitting nurse/nurses in conjunction with other IDT, the patient/resident and/or patient/ resident representative. The baseline care plan should be initiated in 24 hours and will be completed and implemented within 48 hours of admission. In addition: Within the first few days of admission, a Post admission Care Conference will be held for update and review of the baseline care plan. During an interview with RN #2, on 08/25/21 at 09:52 AM, RN #2 stated a Post admission Care Conference was not held for the resident. In addition, RN #2 stated this was likely why they were not aware the baseline care plan had not been completed.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0760 (Tag F0760)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and review of facility policy, the facility failed to keep Resident #9 free of significant medication errors, 1 of 1 residents observed for insulin administration. The ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and review of facility policy, the facility failed to keep Resident #9 free of significant medication errors, 1 of 1 residents observed for insulin administration. The nurse failed to give an airshot prior to injecting Resident #9 with insulin. This failure had the potential to deliver less than the required amount of Insulin. In addition, the airshot is required to ensure the insulin pen is functioning properly. The findings included: The facility admitted Resident #9 with diagnoses including, but not limited to, Diabetes. On 8/24/21 at 11:30 AM, Resident #9 was observed for insulin administration. The order was reviewed with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1- NovoLog FlexPen U-100 Insulin (insulin aspart u-100) 100 units per milliliter. Amount: 20 units before meals three times daily. LPN #1 removed the Insulin pen and supplies from the medication cart and prepared the insulin pen for injection. LPN #1 set the dose on the Insulin pen to 20 units. LPN #1 then proceeded into the resident's room and administered the 20 units of insulin. LPN #1 did not give an airshot before the injection. During an interview with LPN #1, on 8/24/21 at 11:40 AM, LPN #1 was made aware s/he had not followed the manufacturer's instruction for giving a NovoLog FlexPen injection. LPN #1 thought for a moment and stated I didn't prime the pen with 2 units (give an airshot) before giving the resident the insulin injection. LPN #1 also stated s/he always gives an airshot before injecting insulin with an insulin pen. Review of the facility's Medication Administration: Insulin Injections policy revealed: Prime insulin pen by dialing up 2 units and pushing on the button on the end of the pen. Repeat priming procedures until insulin secretes from the needle. Review of the manufacturer's instructions revealed an airshot was required before each injection: Before each injection small amounts of air may collect in the cartridge during normal use. To avoid injecting air and to ensure proper dosing: Turn the dose selector to select 2 units. Hold the pen with the needle pointing up and tap the cartridge with your finger a few times to make any air bubbles collect at the top of the cartridge. Keep the needle pointing upwards and press the push-button all the way in. The dose selector returns to 0. A drop of Insulin should appear at the needle tip. If not, change the needle and repeat the procedure no more than 6 times.
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 observations, interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to keep medication storage areas free of ex...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to keep medication storage areas free of expired biologicals in 4 of 6 medication carts observed during the survey. The findings include: On [DATE] at 9:36 AM inspection of the Unit 3 medication carts revealed the following: Medication Cart A contained one box of biologicals with an expiration date of 01/2021. The box contained PDI SANI-HAND Wipes. Medication Cart B contained one box of biologicals labeled, PDI SANI-HAND Wipes, with an expiration date of 01/2021. On [DATE] at: 9:47 AM inspection of the Unit 2 medication carts revealed the following: Medication Cart A contained two boxes of biologicals, labeled PDI SANI-HAND Wipes, with an expiration date of 01/2021. Medication Cart B contained two boxes of biologicals, labeled PDI SANI-HAND Wipes, with an expiration date of 01/2021. An interview was conducted on [DATE] at 10:44 AM with a representative from the company who supplied the sanitizing wipes. The representative confirmed they had no written information to validate the effectiveness or quality of the wipes beyond the expiration date. During an interview with the Infection Control Preventionist (ICP) on [DATE] at approximately 11:24 AM, the ICP stated that she spoke with a company customer service representative, for the above expired biologicals, concerning the expiration date, and was told that there was a two-year shelf life after the expiration date. According to the ICP, the company had nothing in writing that could be sent to verify this. The ICP said the wipes were used sparingly for residents that were unable to wash their hands with soap and water. She said they were also used on residents that tended to eat the hand sanitizer when provided to them. Review of the facility's Medication Storage in the Healthcare Centers policy, with a revision date of [DATE], revealed in the Policy Statement: Medications and biologicals are stored safely, securely, and properly following manufacturer's recommendations or those of the supplier . Under Procedure .12 the policy noted that outdated medications should be immediately removed from stock and disposed of according to procedures for destruction. The policy did not address outdated biologicals.
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
  • • 37% turnover. Below South Carolina's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 14 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $23,989 in fines. Higher than 94% of South Carolina facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
  • • Grade C (51/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Mixed indicators with Trust Score of 51/100. Visit in person and ask pointed questions.

About This Facility

What is Pruitthealth- Rock Hill's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns PruittHealth- Rock Hill an overall rating of 3 out of 5 stars, which is considered average nationally. Within South Carolina, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This mid-range rating indicates the facility meets federal standards but may have areas for improvement.

How is Pruitthealth- Rock Hill Staffed?

CMS rates PruittHealth- Rock Hill's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 37%, compared to the South Carolina average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Pruitthealth- Rock Hill?

State health inspectors documented 14 deficiencies at PruittHealth- Rock Hill during 2021 to 2025. These included: 1 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 Pruitthealth- Rock Hill?

PruittHealth- Rock Hill 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 PRUITTHEALTH, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 132 certified beds and approximately 98 residents (about 74% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in Rock Hill, South Carolina.

How Does Pruitthealth- Rock Hill Compare to Other South Carolina Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in South Carolina, PruittHealth- Rock Hill's overall rating (3 stars) is above the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (37%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Pruitthealth- Rock Hill?

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 Pruitthealth- Rock Hill Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, PruittHealth- Rock Hill has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 3-star overall rating and ranks #1 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 Pruitthealth- Rock Hill Stick Around?

PruittHealth- Rock Hill has a staff turnover rate of 37%, 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 Pruitthealth- Rock Hill Ever Fined?

PruittHealth- Rock Hill has been fined $23,989 across 1 penalty action. This is below the South Carolina average of $33,319. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.

Is Pruitthealth- Rock Hill on Any Federal Watch List?

PruittHealth- Rock Hill 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.