Lila Doyle Post Acute

101 Lila Doyle Drive, Seneca, SC 29672 (864) 885-7675
For profit - Corporation 120 Beds THE ENSIGN GROUP Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
61/100
#43 of 186 in SC
Last Inspection: March 2025

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

Overview

Lila Doyle Post Acute in Seneca, South Carolina, has a Trust Grade of C+, indicating it is slightly above average but not exceptional. It ranks #43 out of 186 facilities in South Carolina, placing it in the top half, and is the best option in Oconee County. The facility is currently improving, having reduced its issues from seven in 2023 to none in 2025. Staffing is a concern with a turnover rate of 63%, which is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and the facility has received $9,318 in fines, which is considered average for the area. However, there are notable weaknesses to consider. A critical incident involved a resident being sexually abused by a visitor, with staff failing to intervene promptly and adequately investigate the allegation. Another concern was that a resident was not treated with dignity while being assisted with eating. Overall, while there are strengths in quality measures, families should weigh the staffing challenges and serious incidents carefully when making their decision.

Trust Score
C+
61/100
In South Carolina
#43/186
Top 23%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
7 → 0 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
63% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
$9,318 in fines. Lower than most South Carolina facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 37 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for South Carolina. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
○ Average
7 deficiencies on record. Average for a facility this size. Mostly minor or procedural issues.
★★★★☆
4.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★★☆☆
3.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 7 issues
2025: 0 issues

The Good

  • 5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 63%

17pts above South Carolina avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Federal Fines: $9,318

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

Chain: THE ENSIGN GROUP

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

Staff turnover is elevated (63%)

15 points above South Carolina average of 48%

The Ugly 7 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening
Nov 2023 2 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

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

Based on interviews, record review, document review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure 1 (Resident (R)2) of 2 sampled residents reviewed for abuse was not sexually abused by a visitor o...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews, record review, document review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure 1 (Resident (R)2) of 2 sampled residents reviewed for abuse was not sexually abused by a visitor of the facility. On 10/30/2023, a certified nursing assistant (CNA) witnessed a visitor fondle (stroke or caress lovingly, or erotically) the breast of a cognitively impaired resident, R2. Instead of immediately intervening to separate the resident from the visitor, the CNA left the resident alone in their room to report the incident to a nurse, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)6. LPN6 then removed the resident from their room but did not escort the visitor out of the facility, as listed in the facility's abuse policy. The visitor hung around the facility and was later observed to be in close proximity of the resident and offered R2 some ice cream. One hour and nine minutes after CNA8 observed the visitor fondle the breast of R2, the visitor left the faciity on their own accord. It was determined the facility's non-compliance with one or more requirements of participation caused, or was likely to cause, serious injury, harm, impairment, or death to residents. The Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was related to State Operations Manual, Appendix PP, 483.45 (Abuse) at a scope and severity of J. The IJ began on 10/30/2023 when a visitor was observed fondling R2's breast in the resident's room. The visitor was not made to leave the facility and later was observed to offer the resident ice cream. The Executive Director (ED) and Director of Nursing (DON) were notified of the IJ on 11/04/2023 at 6:50 PM and provided the IJ template at that time. A Removal Plan was requested. The Removal Plan was accepted by the state survey agency on 11/05/2023 at 1:27 PM. The IJ was removed on 11/05/2023 at 3:06 PM after the surveyor performed onsite verification that the Removal Plans had been implemented. Noncompliance remained at the lower scope and severity of D that was not immediate jeopardy for F600. Findings included: Review of a facility policy titled, Abuse: Prevention of and Prohibition Against, revised in October 2022, revealed, It is the policy of this Facility that each resident has the right to be free from abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property, and exploitation. The policy indicated, This policy applies to all Facility staff including, but not limited to, employees, consultants, contractors, volunteers, students, and other caregivers who provide care and services to residents on behalf of the Facility. Purpose: Residents also have the right to be free from verbal, sexual, physical, and mental abuse, corporal punishment, and involuntary seclusion. The policy revealed, Abuse is willful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or punishment with resulting physical harm, pain, or mental anguish. This includes the deprivation by an individual, including a caretaker, of goods or services that are necessary to attain or maintain physical, mental and psychosocial well-being. Instances of abuse of all residents, irrespective of any mental or physical condition, cause physical harm, pain or mental anguish. It includes verbal abuse, sexual abuse, physical abuse, and mental abuse including abuse facilitated or enabled through the use of technology. Willful, as used in this definition of abuse, means the individual must have acted deliberately, not that the individual must have intended to inflict injury or harm. Per the policy, Sexual abuse is non-consensual sexual contact of any type with a resident. A review of R2's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 05/05/2023, with diagnoses that included Alzheimer's disease, dementia with mood disturbance, and need for assistance with personal care. A review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 08/12/2023, revealed R2 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 4, which indicated the resident had severe cognitive impairment. A review of R2's care plan, initiated on 05/07/2023, revealed the resident was at risk for impaired cognitive function and thought processes related to their diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease and dementia with mood disturbance. Review of the facility Initial Report dated 10/30/2023, revealed on 10/30/2023 at 1:45 PM, a certified nursing assistant (CNA) observed a visitor fondle (stroke or caress lovingly, or erotically) R2's right breast. The Initial Report revealed the CNA alerted a nurse, who observed the visitor attempt to close R2's door with only the resident and the visitor in the room. According to the Initial Report, the CNA and nurse removed the resident from their room and notified the Executive Director (ED) and Director of Nursing (DON), who then notified the resident's representative of the allegation. The Initial report indicated the family of the visitor were notified the visitor would not be allowed to the return to the facility until after the investigation was completed. Contained within the facility's investigation file was an undated document titled, ED Interview with [CNA8], which revealed CNA8 witnessed a visitor of another resident (R3) in R2's room having a conversation with the resident. Per the document, R2 was seated in a wheelchair while the visitor stood beside the resident. The document indicated CNA8 witnessed the visitor touch R2's right breast over the resident's clothing. During an interview on 11/04/2023 at 11:20 AM, CNA8 stated as she sat in the day room, she observed a visitor as they pushed R2 from the dining room. Per CNA8, then about 10 minutes later as she walked down the hall, she noted this same visitor as they stood in front, to the side of R2, and the visitor rubbed R2's breast over the top of the resident's clothing. According to CNA8, when she witnessed the incident, instead of separating the resident from the visitor, she immediately went to get the nurse. CNA8 reported the nurse went to R2's room and removed the resident from the room. According to CNA8, she did not know what happened to the visitor, but the nurse reported the incident to supervisor, who then informed the DON. In an interview on 11/04/2023 at 10:55 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)6 stated on Monday, 10/30/2023, CNA8 informed her that she had witnessed a visitor rubbing the breast of R2. LPN6 stated she immediately went to R2's room and found the resident's room door partially closed. Per LPN6, she asked the visitor to leave, and she took R2 to the common area in front of the nursing station. According to LPN6, the visitor then came and stood by R2 and offered the resident some ice cream. LPN6 stated she then notified the DON. During an interview on 11/04/2023 at 1:30 PM, LPN5 stated as she completed her medication pass, she observed CNA8 and LPN6, who were visibly upset as the CNA had observed a visitor fondle the breast of R2. LPN5 stated she did witness the visitor make a motion with their head for them and R2 to go to a more secluded area in the common area. LPN5 stated the visitor tried to give R2 some ice cream. According to LPN5, the visitor just hung out in the common area. During an interview on 11/04/2023 at 2:15 PM, the DON stated once she was notified of the incident, she assessed and interviewed R2. The DON stated on her way to assess the resident, she observed the visitor leave the facility with their spouse. The DON stated she asked the staff to clarify their observations then she proceeded to assess the resident. According to the DON, she initiated the investigation by interviewing the resident, who denied being touched inappropriately by anyone, then reported her findings to the ED. Per the DON, she notified the local police and the resident representative (RP) for R2, who stated they wanted to press charges against the visitor. Contained within the facility's investigation file was an undated document titled, DON Victim Assessment and Interview Statement for [R2], revealed on 10/30/2023 at approximately 2:25 PM, the DON assessed and interviewed R2 after being notified of the alleged abuse of the resident by a visitor of the facility. Per the document, the resident acknowledged they had memory problems, and the DON noted the resident had no visible alterations and denied pain or distress. Review of the local sheriff's office report with an incident date of 10/30/2023, revealed the sheriff was dispatched to the facility in reference to an alleged sexual assault. Per the report, the victim, R2, and the suspect were not related and were strangers to each other. Per the report, R2 suffered from dementia and could not recall the incident. The report revealed, CNA8 observed the suspect fondle the breast of R2. In a telephone interview on 11/04/2023 at 11:21 AM, the RP of R2 stated they received a call from the DON who stated the resident had been inappropriately touched by a visitor, who had pushed the resident from the lower-level dining room to the resident's room. The RP stated they were told the visitor was observed to fondle the breast of R2, as the resident sat in their wheelchair. The RP stated when they arrived, R2 seemed fine, but was not the same. The RP explained that on the next day (10/31/2023), the resident was sent to the emergency room due to perineal area bleeding which was found to be from a severe urinary tract infection. Per the RP, R2 did not recall the incident because of their diagnosis of dementia. The RP acknowledged they were pressing charges against the visitor and wanted the resident moved. R2 was unavailable for interview and observations at the time of the survey. During an interview on 11/04/2023 at 3:00 PM, the ED stated the DON notified her on 10/30/2023 around 2:30 PM, that a visitor had touched the right breast of R2 over the resident's clothing. The ED stated the visitor's spouse was called and notified of the allegation and that the visitor was not allowed back in the facility. The ED stated the police were notified. According to the ED, there was video footage from the facility's surveillance system, which showed the visitor took the resident to their room. Per the ED, she had not watched the video footage so she could not speak to the time the abuse potentially occurred. A review of the Timeline of Events form 10/30/2023 Abuse Reporting, obtained from the facility's video surveillance camera and signed by the ED, revealed the following on 10/30/2023- - At 11:53 AM, the visitor entered the facility. - At 12:52 PM, the visitor began to push R2 back to their room. - At 12:57 PM, the visitor and R2 enter the resident's room. - At 1:16 PM, CNA8 observed the visitor fondle the breast of R2. The nurse entered the resident's room and brought the resident to common area. - At 1:20 PM, R2 began to propel their wheelchair down the hallway. - At 1:21 PM, a CNA brought R2 back to the common area. - At 1:28 PM, R2 began to propel their wheelchair down the hallway. - At 1:31 PM, R2 spoke with the visitor, their spouse, and R3, who were all present in R3's room. - At 1:33 PM, a CNA brought R2 to the common area. - At 1:46 PM, the visitor and R2 were seated together at table in the common area. - At 1:48 PM, the visitor left the common area. - At 2:25 PM, the visitor and their spouse exited the facility. On 11/05/2023 at 1:27 PM, the facility submitted an acceptable Removal Plan, which revealed, 1. R2 was immediately interviewed and assessed by the Director of Nursing on 10/30/2023. R2 has a diagnosis of Alzheimer's and has a BIMs score of 6, which indicates sever [sic] impairment. R2 denies that any incident occurred with the [male/female] visitor. There was no physical trauma noted during the body assessment. The FNP [family nurse practitioner] was notified of R2's new onset of [perineal] bleeding on 10/31/23 and completed an assessment noting no physical trauma. R2 was transferred to the hospital for evaluation and remains at the hospital. A psychosocial care plan was developed and implemented on 11/4/2023. 2. All residents currently residing at [name of facility] had the potential to be affected by this alleged deficient practice. 3. The medical director was notified of the immediate jeopardy on 11/4/2023. 4. The following education was initiated for all staff by the Director of Nursing and/or Designee on 11/4/2023. a. Abuse Prohibition Policy and Procedure, specifically, that an alleged perpetrator must be removed from the building immediately. b. A staff member(s) will stay in the vicinity of the alleged perpetrator until the alleged perpetrator exits the facility to ensure resident safety. c. Staff have the ability, responsibility, and authority to have any alleged perpetrator exit the facility, either voluntarily or by calling the police. 5. All staff will be educated on Abuse Prohibition Policy and Procedure prior to their next worked shift. 6. Family of alleged perpetrator has been notified [he/she] is not to return to facility. If alleged perpetrator would return to the facility, [he/she] will be asked to leave immediately and law enforcement will be notified. 7. Ad hoc [a Latin term that meant for this or for this situation] IDT/QA [interdisciplinary team/quality assurance] meeting held on 11/4/2023 to discuss the IJ and develop the removal plan 8. Monitoring a) Upon R2's return from the hospital, resident will be interviewed by social services daily x 3 days (72 hours) to determine if there are any psychosocial changes noted. This interview will be documented in a social services note. b) The facility Psychiatrist will evaluate R2 monthly for 6 months. c) Psychosocial evaluations will be completed weekly on R2 for 6 weeks. d) Any changes noted in psychosocial behavior will be documented in the medical record and will be addressed with IDT. 9. All corrections were completed on 11/5/2023. 10. The immediacy of the IJ was removed on 11/5/2023. Onsite verification: Onsite verification was conducted on 11/05/2023 to verify the facility had implemented the Removal Plan. The onsite verification included staff interviews that revealed staff were knowledgeable of abuse, the reporting requirements, and the how to implement protection of the resident once an allegation of abuse had been observed; the staff were knowledgeable they should not allow the visitor in the facility and what should be done should the visitor attempt to enter the facility; a review of the facility's in-service education revealed staff were provided education on 11/4/2023 and 11/05/2023 regarding their responsibility to protect residents from abuse; residents were interviewed and voiced no concerns related to abuse; employee files were reviewed and no concerns were identified; a review of the facility's staffing revealed no concerns; and a review of the facility's QA meeting notes revealed no concerns. The IJ continued until 11/05/2023 at 3:06 PM, when the surveyor verified elements of the Removal Plan had been implemented. The noncompliance remained on 11/05/2023 for no actual harm with the potential for more than minimal harm that is not immediate jeopardy.
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

Based on interviews, record review, document review, and policy review, the facility failed to conduct a thorough investigation following an allegation of sexual abuse for 1 resident (Resident #2) of ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews, record review, document review, and policy review, the facility failed to conduct a thorough investigation following an allegation of sexual abuse for 1 resident (Resident #2) of 2 sampled residents reviewed for abuse. Findings included: Review of a facility policy titled, Abuse: Prevention of and Prohibition Against, revised in October 2022, revealed, 4. All allegations of abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property, and exploitation will be promptly and thoroughly investigated by the Administrator or his/her designee. The policy specified, 5. The investigation will include the following; * An interview with the person(s) reporting the incident; * An interview with the resident(s); * Interviews with any witnesses to the incident, including the alleged perpetrator, as appropriate; * A review of the resident's medical record; * An interview with staff members (on all shifts) who may have information regarding the alleged incident; * Interviews with other residents to whom the accused employee provides care or services or who may have information regarding the alleged incident; * An interview with staff members (on all shifts) having contact with the accused employee; and * A review of all circumstances surrounding the incident. Per the policy, 7. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Facility will attempt to determine in abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property, or exploitation has occurred. 8. The investigation, and the results of the investigation, will be documented. A review of Resident #2's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 05/05/2023, with diagnoses that included Alzheimer's disease, dementia with mood disturbance, and need for assistance with personal care. A review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 08/12/2023, revealed Resident #2 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 4, which indicated the resident had severe cognitive impairment. A review of Resident #2's care plan, initiated on 05/07/2023, revealed the resident was at risk for impaired cognitive function and thought processes related to their diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease and dementia with mood disturbance. Review of the facility Initial Report dated 10/30/2023, revealed on 10/30/2023 at 1:45 PM, a certified nursing assistant (CNA) observed a visitor fondle (stroke or caress lovingly, or erotically) Resident #2's right breast. The Initial Report revealed the CNA alerted a nurse, who observed the visitor attempt to close Resident #2's door with only the resident and the visitor in the room. According to the Initial Report, the CNA and nurse removed the resident from their room. Per the Initial Report, the Executive Director (ED) and Director of Nursing (DON) were notified, who then notified the resident's representative of the allegation. Review of the facility investigation file revealed statements were only obtained from the staff who witnessed the visitor fondle the breast of Resident #2, CNA #8; the nurse who CNA #8 reported the incident to, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #6; the victim, Resident #2; and the visitor's (perpetrator's) spouse. The facility investigation file did not include an interview with the alleged perpetrator, interviews with staff members who may have had information regarding the incident, interviews with other residents who may have had information regarding the incident or interaction with the visitor, a review of all circumstances that surrounded the incident, or a determination as to whether abuse occurred. During an interview on 11/04/2023 at 2:15 PM, the DON stated once she was notified of the incident, she assessed and interviewed Resident #2. The DON stated on her way to assess the resident, she observed the visitor leave the facility with their spouse. The DON stated she asked the staff to clarify their observations then she proceeded to assess the resident. According to the DON, she initiated the investigation by interviewing the resident, who denied being touched inappropriately by anyone, then reported her findings to the ED. Per the DON, she notified the local police and the resident representative (RP) for Resident #2, who stated they wanted to press charges against the visitor. The DON stated the facility only obtained statements from CNA #8 and LPN #6. Per the DON, no other statements were obtained during the investigation. The DON explained what constituted a thorough investigation included an interview from everyone involved. During an interview on 11/04/2023 at 3:00 PM, the ED stated the DON notified her on 10/30/2023 around 2:30 PM, that a visitor had touched the right breast of Resident #2 over the resident's clothing. The ED stated the visitor's spouse was called and notified of the allegation and that the visitor was not allowed back in the facility. The ED stated the police were notified. According to the ED, there was video footage from the facility's surveillance system, that showed the visitor took the resident to their room. Per the ED, she had not watched the video footage so she could not speak to the time the abuse potentially occurred. The ED agreed that it would have been important for her to review the video footage for a thorough investigation to have been completed. The ED stated education was provided to the staff on 10/31/2023, but resident protection was not reviewed in detail. Per the ED, the topics discussed included immediate response/action, notification of the in-house supervisor, and assurance the victim was removed from the situation. The ED stated the staff were not provide education on how the staff should ensure the resident was protected from a visitor. Per the ED, during the investigation, she did not interview the dining room staff or any other staff that worked on the second floor. The ED explained that she spoke with other residents about any interactions they may have had with the visitor, but she did not have written documentation of such interviews.
Jul 2023 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, record review, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to promote the dignity of 1 (Resident (R) 6) of 1 resident who was observed with staff standing while assisting the resident to eat. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Resident Rights: Respect and Dignity, dated 10/04/16, revealed . You have the right to be treated with respect and dignity . reside and receive services in the facility reasonable accommodation of your needs and preferences . Review of R6's admission Record located in the resident's electronic medical record (EMR) under the Profile tab, revealed R6 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included but was not limited to; Alzheimer's disease with late onset, encounter for palliative care, need for assistance with personal care, lack of coordination, and disorders of muscle. Review of R6's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 06/08/23, located in the resident's EMR under the MDS tab, indicated the facility assessed R6 to have a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score not listed, which indicated the resident was severely cognitively impaired and had memory problems. The MDS also indicated R6 was totally dependent and required one person assistance with eating. Review of R6's Care Plan located in the resident's EMR under the Care Plan tab and dated 06/27/23, revealed R6 . has nutritional problem or potential nutritional problem related resident is fed by staff and has Alzheimer's disease . Review of R6's Physician's Orders located in the resident's EMR under the Orders tab and dated 07/2023, revealed R6 was ordered a regular diet with a pureed texture and thin liquids. During an observation of the lunch meal on 07/11/23 from 12:55 PM to 1:02 PM, revealed R6 was being assisted with eating while in her bed by Registered Nurse (RN)1, who was standing beside her while assisting R6 to eat. There was a chair noted in the room at this time on the wall near the resident's bedside dresser. During an interview on 07/11/23 at 1:04 PM, RN1 stated she should have been sitting down. She confirmed she could have figured out a different way to feed the resident other than standing and she had received education on how to assist residents with meals and sitting down was a part of the education. During an interview on 07/13/23 at 3:39 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated the expectations for staff assisting residents with meals would be for staff to provide dignity to residents by sitting next to them to feed the residents.
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 observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to implement the care plan for 1 (Resident (R)43) of 1 re...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to implement the care plan for 1 (Resident (R)43) of 1 resident reviewed for skin conditions. Specifically, the failure to apply the skin protection devices placed R43 at risk for additional skin tears. Findings include: Review of R43's Medical Diagnosis, located in R43's electronic medical record (EMR) found in the Medical Diagnosis tab, revealed R43 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included but was not limited to; diabetes, heart failure, and pressure ulcer. Review of a Nursing Note dated 05/01/23 at 5:08 AM and located in the Progress Notes tab of R43's EMR, noted, . When changing the pt's [patient's] PICC (Special IV line) dressing, while removing the tegaderm it was noticed that she had a 4x2 skin tear that was actively bleeding, approx. [approximately] 2 cm (centimeters) above the pt's PICC insertion side. While using sterile technique, bordered gauze was applied to tear. Review of a Nursing Note dated 06/07/23 at 10:32 AM and located in the Progress Notes tab of R43's EMR, noted, . Cna [SIC] was preparing resident for shower when they discovered 2 skin tears. one on upper left arm and one on back of lower right leg resident states she does not know how these happened wound orders given. family made aware staff will monitor for s/s [signs and symptoms] of infection . Review of R43's Care Plan located in the EMR, found in the Care Plan tab, and initiated on 06/15/23, revealed, . Has Skin Tear/potential for skin tear . Interventions/Tasks Derma Saver arm and leg sleeves applied . Review of a Nursing Note dated 06/26/23 at 10:32 AM and located in the Progress Notes tab of R43's EMR, noted, . During morning assessment, this nurse was notified by the resident, of a skin tear upon the right elbow that occurred over the weekend . Wound orders in place, and family notified . During an interview and observation of R43 on 07/11/23 at 11:00 AM, R43 was observed to have scabs on both arms and the Derma Saver arm sleeves were not in place. R43 stated her skin tears easily. During an observation on 07/12/23 at 11:12 AM, revealed R43 lying in bed without the Derma Saver arm sleeves. During an interview on 07/11/23 at 11:25 AM, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA)2 stated the resident's skin was sensitive and tore easily. CNA2 stated she always puts a sheet between the resident and the sling when using the lift for transfers. During an interview on 07/12/23 at 2:13 PM, CNA3 stated the nurse told her R43 was supposed to wear arm sleeves. CNA3 said she had not seen the arm sleeves in about a week. CNA3 stated she was going to check with laundry to see if they had been sent for a wash. During an interview on 07/12/23 at 3:30 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 1 said she looked everywhere in the resident's room and could not find the arm sleeves. During an interview on 07/12/23 at 4:30 PM, the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), who was also the wound care nurse, confirmed the care plan for the arms sleeves was not implemented. The ADON stated she added the arm sleeves to the care plan as a nursing intervention and thought they had been in place.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure 1 (Resident (R)135) of 3 sampled residents reviewed for nutr...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure 1 (Resident (R)135) of 3 sampled residents reviewed for nutrition and/or hydration status had accurate care plans. This placed R135 at risk for choking and/or aspiration related to the consistency of liquids. Findings include: Review of Medical Diagnosis located in R135's electronic medical record (EMR) and under the Diagnosis tab, revealed R135 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included but was not limited to; dysphagia (difficulty in swallowing) and dementia. Review of Physicians Orders located in R135's EMR under the Orders tab and dated 06/27/23, documented, . Special Instructions: MEDS CRUSHED IN APPLE SAUCE .MECHANICAL SOFT DIET NECTAR THICK CONSISTENCY, no straws . Review of Physicians Orders located in R135's EMR under the Orders tab and dated 07/12/23, documented, . Monitor for signs of aspiration pna [pneumonia]: lungs sounds, increased cough, vs [vital signs] . Review of R135's Speech Therapy SLP Discharge Summary, Discharge Recommendations and Status dated 07/06/23, documented, . Oral intake Solids = Puree consistencies . Liquid = Nectar thick liquids . it is recommended the patient use the following strategies during oral intake: alternation of liquid/solids, alternation of tastes, bolus size modifications and general swallow techniques/precautions, along with the following maneuvers: upright posture for [greater than]30 minutes after meals and upright posture during meals . During an interview on 07/13/23 11:34 AM, the Speech Therapist (ST) stated R135 was having problems clearing his airway after taking thin liquids and that is why she put him on nectar thick. She said he did better if he was sitting up. Review of the Care Plan located in R135's EMR under the Care Plan tab and with an initiation date of 06/19/23 and revised date of 07/10/23, failed to identify swallowing difficulties as a problem and failed to list interventions as directed by the Speech Therapist (ST) upon discharge. The care plan identified R135 as having nutritional problems related to a fracture of the left femur. Interventions included, . Diet as ordered by the physician. Mechanical soft ground with thin liquids . During an interview on 07/13/23 at 8:39 AM, the Minimum Data Set Coordinator (MDSC) confirmed the care plan was not accurate related to the resident's diet and swallowing issues.
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 upon observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure 1 (Resident (R) 135) of 6 residents observed...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based upon observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure 1 (Resident (R) 135) of 6 residents observed receiving medications, received nectar thick liquids with the medication pass as ordered by the physician. This placed R135 at risk of choking and aspiration. Findings include: Review of Medical Diagnosis located in R135's electronic medical record (EMR) under the Diagnosis tab, revealed R135 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included but was not limited to; dysphagia (difficulty in swallowing) and dementia. Review of Physicians Orders located in R135's EMR under the Orders tab and dated 06/27/23, revealed, . Special Instructions: MEDS CRUSHED IN APPLE SAUCE . MECHANICAL SOFT DIET NECTAR THICK CONSISTENCY, no straws . Review of R135's Speech Therapy SLP Discharge Summary Discharge Recommendations and Status, dated 07/06/23, documented, . Oral intake Solids = Puree consistencies .Liquid = Nectar thick liquids . During an observation of the medication pass on 07/12/23 at 9:04 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)3 placed R135's medications into a small med cup and took a glass with water into R135's room. LPN3 spoke with the resident, who was lying in bed with the head of the bed elevated close to 90 degrees. LPN3 determined that due to R135's condition, his medications should be crushed and given in applesauce. LPN3 then crushed the medications and administered them to R135 in applesauce. R135 swallowed the meds in the applesauce with no issues. LPN3 then proceeded to give R135 thin water through a straw. R135 quickly drank half of the glass of thin water and then began to cough. R135 kept coughing for several minutes to clear his airway. LPN3 remained in the room until the resident could talk and his airway had been cleared. Upon returning to the medication cart, LPN3 referenced R135's physician orders revealing R135 should only have nectar thick liquids with his crushed meds. During an interview on 07/12/23 at 10:00 AM, LPN3 stated she was an agency nurse and only here for one day. LPN3 confirmed the physician's orders should be referenced before administering medications. LPN3 stated she had worked at this facility one other time, but it was on a different unit. LPN3 had the roster of residents on her assigned hallway with instructions for giving medications, including the type of liquid to be used. The list did not include R135. During an interview on 07/12/23 at 5:32 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated they submit shifts that need to be covered to the agency who then tries to send nurses that have worked at the facility before. The DON stated there was no orientation or observation for administering medications because they were all familiar with the EMR and should know to reference the orders if necessary to find out a resident's status. During an interview on 07/13/23 at 8:18 AM, LPN2 stated he was responsible for keeping the resident list updated. He said R135 had recently moved from another room into his current room and had not been added to the hallway roster. LPN2 stated agency nurses were familiar with the EMR system and should reference the medication pass instructions before giving the medications.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0883 (Tag F0883)

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 1 (Resident (R)5) of 5 sampled r...

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 1 (Resident (R)5) of 5 sampled residents reviewed for vaccinations were up to date with the pneumococcal vaccination. This placed R5 at increased risk for serious illness related to respiratory infections. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure physician standing orders for the pneumococcal vaccine were individualized to the resident. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Immunizations-Influenza and Pneumococcal revised on 10/2022, revealed, . For Pneumococcal Immunizations refer to the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) website: Pneumococcal Vaccination: Summary of Who and when to vaccinate or Pneumococcal Vaccination Timing for Adults . Two types of Pneumococcal vaccines are available for adults: Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccines (PCV13, PCV15, and PCV 20) . Pneumococcal Polysaccharide Vaccine (PPSV23) . The resident or the resident's representative has the opportunity to decline immunizations(s) . Review of the referenced document from the CDC website titled, Pneumococcal Vaccine Timing for Adults revealed, . For those who previously received PPSV23 but who have not received any pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (e.g., PCV13, PCV15, PCV20), You may administer one dose of PCV15 or PCV20 . The minimum interval is at least 1 year . Their pneumococcal vaccinations are complete . 1. Review of R5's Order Summary Report found in the electronic medical record (EMR) under the Orders tab, revealed R5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of Medical Diagnosis found in R5's EMR under the Medical Diagnosis tab, revealed R5 had diagnoses that included but was not limited to; respiratory failure, unspecified with hypoxia (low oxygen), and dementia. Review of Clinical-Immunizations found in R5's EMR under the Immunization tab, revealed R5 received a Pneumococcal Polysaccharide Vaccine (PPSV23) on 02/26/21. Review of R5's Active Orders dated 07/13/23 and located under the Orders tab of the EMR, revealed, . May have Pneumonia Vaccine if resident has not received in the past 5 years . During an interview on 07/13/23 at 3:16 PM, the Infection Preventionist (IP) confirmed R5 had not received the second conjugate dose of the vaccine. The IP was unable to find an assessment, consent, or declination showing that R5 was offered a second conjugate dose. The IP confirmed the standing orders for the Pneumococcal Vaccine needed to be individualized to the resident to follow the CDC guidelines, as referenced in the facility policy.
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?"
  • "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 7 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • 63% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Bottom line: Mixed indicators with Trust Score of 61/100. Visit in person and ask pointed questions.

About This Facility

What is Lila Doyle Post Acute's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns Lila Doyle Post Acute an overall rating of 4 out of 5 stars, which is considered 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 Lila Doyle Post Acute Staffed?

CMS rates Lila Doyle Post Acute's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 63%, which is 17 percentage points above the South Carolina average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs.

What Have Inspectors Found at Lila Doyle Post Acute?

State health inspectors documented 7 deficiencies at Lila Doyle Post Acute during 2023. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 6 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 Lila Doyle Post Acute?

Lila Doyle Post Acute 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 THE ENSIGN GROUP, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 120 certified beds and approximately 86 residents (about 72% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in Seneca, South Carolina.

How Does Lila Doyle Post Acute Compare to Other South Carolina Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in South Carolina, Lila Doyle Post Acute's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 2.9, staff turnover (63%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Lila Doyle Post Acute?

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?" "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations and the facility's high staff turnover rate.

Is Lila Doyle Post Acute Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, Lila Doyle Post Acute 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 4-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 Lila Doyle Post Acute Stick Around?

Staff turnover at Lila Doyle Post Acute is high. At 63%, the facility is 17 percentage points above the South Carolina average of 46%. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?

Was Lila Doyle Post Acute Ever Fined?

Lila Doyle Post Acute has been fined $9,318 across 1 penalty action. This is below the South Carolina average of $33,172. 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 Lila Doyle Post Acute on Any Federal Watch List?

Lila Doyle Post Acute 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.