Lake City Scranton Healthcare Center
Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.
Lake City Scranton Healthcare Center has a Trust Grade of B+, which means it is above average and recommended for families considering care options. It ranks #11 out of 186 nursing homes in South Carolina, placing it in the top half, and #2 out of 9 in Florence County, indicating only one other local facility is rated higher. The facility's performance has been stable, with the same number of issues reported in both 2024 and 2025. Staffing is a concern, receiving a 2 out of 5 stars rating, but with a turnover rate of 39%, which is better than the state average of 46%, suggesting some staff stability. There have been no fines on record, which is a positive sign, and the facility has average RN coverage, meaning they have sufficient registered nurse oversight. However, there are notable weaknesses, including specific incidents where medications were not properly secured in multiple areas, which poses a safety risk. Additionally, the facility failed to offer adequate meal alternatives for residents who refuse the initial meal, and temperature checks for refrigerators and freezers were not consistently performed, risking food safety. Families should weigh these strengths and weaknesses carefully when considering this nursing home.
- Trust Score
- B+
- In South Carolina
- #11/186
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Holding Steady
- 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 23 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for South Carolina. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 21 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
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
Near South Carolina avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 21 deficiencies on record
Jul 2025
4 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the facility policy, observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure Resident (R)74 ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure that appropriate hand hygiene was implemented in 1 of 1 kitchen observed. Additionally, the facility faile...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0565
(Tag F0565)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, and facility policy the facility failed to act promptly to resolve resident grievances from r...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on the facility policy, observations, record reviews, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure Resident 1 (R1) and R2...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2024
4 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
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 ensure residents were free from abuse for...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Investigate Abuse
(Tag F0610)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to conduct a thorough investigation for an alleged inc...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents who were de...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the oxygen units were cleaned and sanitary for...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2022
13 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to maintain the res...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0578
(Tag F0578)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, record reviews and interviews the facility failed to assure that a decision-making capacity form and/or power of attorney was recorded for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for advanced...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record reviews, interviews, and review of the facility policy titled, Fall Management, the facility failed to ensure interventions were put into place and the care plan for Resident #71 (R71)...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, interviews, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to provide necessary car...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 record review, observations, interview, and review of the facility policy titled, Wound Care Policies and Procedures, Performing a Dressing Change, the facility failed to ensure a procedure w...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record reviews, interviews and the policy title, Fall Management, the facility failed to ensure that interventions were in place to prevent or decrease falls for Resident (R) 71 for 1 of 1 re...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0698
(Tag F0698)
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 contract, the facility failed to ensure ongoing communication and coll...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Room Equipment
(Tag F0908)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, review of maintenance logs, and review of the facility policy titled, Maintenance/Housekeepin...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review and review of facility policy and procedure the facility failed to ensure Activities of Daily ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record reviews, interviews, pharmacy labeling, manufacturer labeling, manufacturer package inserts and fa...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0806
(Tag F0806)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, interview, review of facility policy and procedure, and dietary contract the facility failed to ensure 80 of 81 residents were offered options of similar nutritive value to resid...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, interview, and review of facility policy and procedure the facility failed to ensure 1 of 1 three door refrigerator and 2 of 2 freezer temperatures were checked twice a day, a te...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Garbage Disposal
(Tag F0814)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure proper dispose of refuse for 1 of 2 grease collection sites. Specifically, the facility failed to properly dispose of used fryer kitch...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
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
- • Grade B+ (80/100). Above average facility, better than most options in South Carolina.
- • No major safety red flags. No abuse findings, life-threatening violations, or SFF status.
- • 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.
- • 21 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
About This Facility
What is Lake City Scranton Healthcare Center's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns Lake City Scranton Healthcare Center 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 Lake City Scranton Healthcare Center Staffed?
CMS rates Lake City Scranton Healthcare Center's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below 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. RN turnover specifically is 56%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.
What Have Inspectors Found at Lake City Scranton Healthcare Center?
State health inspectors documented 21 deficiencies at Lake City Scranton Healthcare Center during 2022 to 2025. These included: 21 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates Lake City Scranton Healthcare Center?
Lake City Scranton Healthcare Center 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 FUNDAMENTAL HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 88 certified beds and approximately 82 residents (about 93% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in Scranton, South Carolina.
How Does Lake City Scranton Healthcare Center Compare to Other South Carolina Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in South Carolina, Lake City Scranton Healthcare Center'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 Lake City Scranton Healthcare Center?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "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 below-average staffing rating.
Is Lake City Scranton Healthcare Center Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, Lake City Scranton Healthcare Center 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 Lake City Scranton Healthcare Center Stick Around?
Lake City Scranton Healthcare Center 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 Lake City Scranton Healthcare Center Ever Fined?
Lake City Scranton Healthcare Center 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 Lake City Scranton Healthcare Center on Any Federal Watch List?
Lake City Scranton Healthcare Center is not on any federal watch list. The most significant is the Special Focus Facility (SFF) program, which identifies the bottom 1% of nursing homes nationally based on persistent, serious quality problems. Not being on this list means the facility has avoided the pattern of deficiencies that triggers enhanced federal oversight. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review the facility's inspection history directly.