Physical Rehabilitation And Wellness Center Of Spa
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Physical Rehabilitation and Wellness Center of Spa in Spartanburg, South Carolina, has a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. Ranking #164 out of 186 facilities in the state places it in the bottom half, and #14 out of 15 in Spartanburg County suggests that there is only one local option that is better. Although the facility is improving, having reduced its issues from 14 in 2024 to just 2 in 2025, it still has a concerning staffing turnover rate of 58%, significantly higher than the South Carolina average of 46%. Notably, there have been critical incidents, including a failure to administer medications correctly to 18 residents, which posed a serious risk to their health, as well as a failure to protect residents from sexual abuse. While the facility does have average RN coverage, these serious deficiencies highlight the need for careful consideration when choosing this nursing home.
- Trust Score
- F
- In South Carolina
- #164/186
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 58% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ○ Average
- $22,765 in fines. Higher than 54% of South Carolina facilities. Some compliance issues.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 24 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for South Carolina. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 34 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in fire safety.
The Bad
Below South Carolina average (2.8)
Significant quality concerns identified by CMS
12pts above South Carolina avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
10 points above South Carolina average of 48%
The Ugly 34 deficiencies on record
Jan 2025
2 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0625
(Tag F0625)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility policy, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to provide the bed hold policy to Resident (R)1 and...
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
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 review of facility policy, observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2024
14 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, interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to promote dignity during a dre...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0561
(Tag F0561)
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 documents, the facility failed to ensure showers were conducted accor...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0582
(Tag F0582)
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 issue accurate Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notice...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0655
(Tag F0655)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a written copy of the baseline care...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 record review, interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to 1.) ensure the comprehensive care plan in...
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, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to obtain a physician's order pr...
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 record review and interview, the facility failed to have collaboration of care with the dialysis center for one of two ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Unnecessary Medications
(Tag F0759)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review, interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to maintain a medication error rate below five percent. Three errors/omissions out of 26 opportunitie...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure that drugs and biologicals used in the facility were labeled in accordance with currently accepted profess...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0804
(Tag F0804)
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 food palatability for one of one resident (Res...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, interviews, and documentation review, the facility failed to ensure the proper handling of ready-to-eat foods in one of one kitchen. This had the potential to result in the tran...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0883
(Tag F0883)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interviews, and review of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines, the facility ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0921)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment whi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. During medication administration observation on 11/24/24 at 5:00 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)6 prepared to administer a...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2023
2 deficiencies
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, record review, facility document review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to p...
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
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 observations, interviews, record review, facility document review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to r...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 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
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the facility's wound care policy, record review, observation and interviews, the facility failed to ensure wo...
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
Safe Environment
(Tag F0921)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on review of the facility's Housekeeping Checklist, record review, observation, and interviews, the facility failed to provide Resident (R)6 a safe and home like environment for 1 of 3 Residents...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2023
1 deficiency
1 IJ (1 affecting multiple)
CRITICAL
(K)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Deficiency F0760
(Tag F0760)
Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the facility's policy, record reviews, and interviews, the facility failed to protect 18 of 25 residents from...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2022
1 deficiency
1 IJ
CRITICAL
(J)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the facility policy, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure 3 of 3 Residents (R) were fr...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2022
4 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0558
(Tag F0558)
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 a wheelchair was provided to meet the resident's needs and ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0760
(Tag F0760)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interviews, and document and policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from any s...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
QAPI Program
(Tag F0867)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, interviews, and facility policy review, the facility's Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) Committee developed, implemented, and monitored a corrective action plan to address...
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 observations, interviews, document review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food ser...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2021
8 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
Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure privacy for a resident who was observed wearing briefs while in bed for 1 of 3 sampled residents reviewed for dignity. Resident #100...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0565
(Tag F0565)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interviews, and facility policy and procedure, the facility failed to make prompt efforts to resolve gri...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0625
(Tag F0625)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview, record review, and facility policy and procedure, the facility failed to provide 1 of 3 residents (Resident (R89) and or resident representative a copy of the facility's bed-hold p...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0745
(Tag F0745)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 2 residents (Resident (R) 55) received m...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0558
(Tag F0558)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations, interviews and review of the facility's policy titled Call Lights - Answering, the facility failed to ensure that call lights were in reach for 3 of 32 residents (Resident (R) 3...
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
Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that residents receive facial hair and/or fingernail care for 2 or 3 residents reviewed for activities of daily living care and 1 ra...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and manufacturers guidelines the facility failed to ensure staff removed expired medications ...
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, interviews and review of the facility's policies, the facility failed to ensure proper food storage and equipment sanitation in 1 of 1 kitchen observed. Specifically, the facilit...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
- "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
- • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 2 life-threatening violation(s), 1 harm violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 34 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $22,765 in fines. Higher than 94% of South Carolina facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
- • Grade F (4/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Physical Rehabilitation And Wellness Center Of Spa's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns Physical Rehabilitation And Wellness Center Of Spa an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much below average nationally. Within South Carolina, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.
How is Physical Rehabilitation And Wellness Center Of Spa Staffed?
CMS rates Physical Rehabilitation And Wellness Center Of Spa's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 58%, which is 12 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 Physical Rehabilitation And Wellness Center Of Spa?
State health inspectors documented 34 deficiencies at Physical Rehabilitation And Wellness Center Of Spa during 2021 to 2025. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 1 that caused actual resident harm, and 31 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 Physical Rehabilitation And Wellness Center Of Spa?
Physical Rehabilitation And Wellness Center Of Spa 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 120 certified beds and approximately 109 residents (about 91% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in Spartanburg, South Carolina.
How Does Physical Rehabilitation And Wellness Center Of Spa Compare to Other South Carolina Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in South Carolina, Physical Rehabilitation And Wellness Center Of Spa's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (58%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Physical Rehabilitation And Wellness Center Of Spa?
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 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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations, the facility's high staff turnover rate, and the below-average staffing rating.
Is Physical Rehabilitation And Wellness Center Of Spa Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, Physical Rehabilitation And Wellness Center Of Spa has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 1-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in South Carolina. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.
Do Nurses at Physical Rehabilitation And Wellness Center Of Spa Stick Around?
Staff turnover at Physical Rehabilitation And Wellness Center Of Spa is high. At 58%, the facility is 12 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 Physical Rehabilitation And Wellness Center Of Spa Ever Fined?
Physical Rehabilitation And Wellness Center Of Spa has been fined $22,765 across 3 penalty actions. This is below the South Carolina average of $33,307. 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 Physical Rehabilitation And Wellness Center Of Spa on Any Federal Watch List?
Physical Rehabilitation And Wellness Center Of Spa 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.