Lake Marion Nursing Facility

1527 Urbana Road, Summerton, SC 29148 (803) 485-2317
Non profit - Corporation 88 Beds Independent Data: November 2025 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
19/100
#115 of 186 in SC
Last Inspection: September 2024

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

Overview

Lake Marion Nursing Facility has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating poor performance and significant concerns regarding care. With a state ranking of #115 out of 186 facilities in South Carolina, they are in the bottom half, and they rank #2 out of 2 in Clarendon County, meaning only one other local option is available. The facility is on a trend of improvement, having reduced their issues from two in 2024 to one in 2025, but they still reported serious incidents including failure to protect residents from physical abuse by staff and not properly investigating medication discrepancies. Staffing is a relative strength with a 4 out of 5 rating and turnover at 46%, which is average for the state. However, they have incurred fines totaling $15,646, which is concerning and suggests ongoing compliance issues.

Trust Score
F
19/100
In South Carolina
#115/186
Bottom 39%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
2 → 1 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
46% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
○ Average
$15,646 in fines. Higher than 61% of South Carolina facilities. Some compliance issues.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 42 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for South Carolina. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
Violations
○ Average
7 deficiencies on record. Average for a facility this size. Mostly minor or procedural issues.
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 2 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

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.

The Bad

2-Star Overall Rating

Below South Carolina average (2.8)

Below average - review inspection findings carefully

Staff Turnover: 46%

Near South Carolina avg (46%)

Higher turnover may affect care consistency

Federal Fines: $15,646

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

The Ugly 7 deficiencies on record

2 life-threatening
Sept 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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff maintained documented evidence of a thorough investigation of alleged misappropriation for 1 (Residen...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff maintained documented evidence of a thorough investigation of alleged misappropriation for 1 (Resident (R)25) of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. Findings include: Review of a facility policy titled Discrepancies, Loss And/Or Diversion of Medications revised on 02/25/25 revealed, . A. Immediately upon the discovery or suspicion of a discrepancy, suspected loss or diversion, the director of nursing or supervisor is immediately notified. The nurse(s) noting the discrepancy should remain on duty until relieved by the director of nursing or supervisor. The director of nursing, or in the director's absence the designee, investigates and makes every reasonable effort to reconcile all reported discrepancies. The director of nursing documents and reports irreconcilable differences to the administrator and consultant pharmacist. 1) The information should not be discussed with other individuals outside of administrative staff. 2) During the process, the Consultant Pharmacist may be available to verify suspected loss. The policy further revealed, C. Loss of supply of medication, included, 3) Document the loss and the investigation process. Review of R25's admission Record revealed the facility admitted R25 on 07/22/24. According to the admission Record, the resident had a medical history that included, but was not limited to, diagnoses of colostomy, osteoarthritis, and rheumatoid arthritis. Review of R25's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 07/17/25, revealed R25 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13 out of 15, which indicated the resident had intact cognition. Review of R25's Care Plan Report included a focus area revised on 02/04/25 that indicated the resident was at risk for unrelieved or worsening pain due to the effects of rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, and ostomy. Interventions directed staff to administer medication as ordered for osteoarthritis (initiated 07/22/24) and administer medication as ordered for rheumatoid arthritis (initiated 07/22/24). Review of R25's Order Recap [Recapitulation] Report contained an order dated 12/27/24 for hydrocodone-acetaminophen 5-325 milligram (mg), with instructions to give one tablet three times a day. Review of Pharmacy Consolidated Delivery Sheets dated 07/17/25 indicated the pharmacy delivered 90 tablets of R25's hydrocodone-acetaminophen 5-325 mg.Review of R25's Accountability Record revealed a handwritten note that stated 60 of (to indicate 60 of 90 tablets to be accounted for on the Accountability Record). The Accountability Record revealed that on 07/17/25 there were 60 tablets remaining. Further review revealed there was no Accountability Record for the additional 30 tablets to account for a total of 90 tablets that were dispensed per the Consolidated Delivery Sheets. Review of R25's Progress Notes dated 08/09/25 at 5:24 PM revealed R25 had enough hydrocodone-acetaminophen (5-325 mg) available until the next morning. The notes revealed the facility on-call pharmacy was notified for additional medication, and the pharmacy revealed that on 07/17/25 a 30-day supply was dispensed, and the medication could not be refilled until 08/16/25. Review of a Five-Day Follow-Up Report, dated 08/18/25, revealed that after an investigation the facility could not find 30 tablets of R25's hydrocodone-acetaminophen 5-325 mg. During an interview on 09/05/25 at 11:10 AM, the Administrator stated that all residents had been audited on narcotics by the consultant pharmacist on Tuesday (08/12/25) after the incident. She stated the consultant pharmacist audited everyone who administered narcotics. During an interview on 09/05/25 at 11:42 AM, the Consultant Pharmaciststated she made copies of all of the tracker sheets for all residents on narcotics but did not have documentation of the residents who were reviewed. She stated she reviewed every scheduled and as-needed medication for the residents with the names of the individuals who dispensed the medication to see if a nurse was giving more medication. During an interview on 09/05/25 at 12:34 PM, the Chief Clinical Officer (CCO) stated the folder supplied to the surveyor was all the information that had been investigated. The folder contained the initial notification to the State Agency, 5-Day follow up investigation, three witness statements, accountability records (narcotic sheet) for R2, R25, and R70, and a copy of a medication pill pack for R70. There was no documentation of the audit performed by the Consultant Pharmacist.
Sept 2024 2 deficiencies 2 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 facility policy, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure Residents (R)73, R10, and R479 ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of facility policy, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure Residents (R)73, R10, and R479 were free from physical abuse by Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA)1 on 07/30/24 and 08/02/24. On 09/20/24 at 11:04 AM, the Administrator and the Director of Nursing (DON) were notified that the failure to protect multiple residents from from physical abuse constituted Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) at F600. On 09/20/24 at 11:04 AM, the survey team provided the Administrator with a copy of the CMS Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) Template and informed the facility IJ existed as of 07/30/24. The IJ were related to 42 CFR 483.12- Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation. On 09/20/24 at 2:40 PM, the facility provided an acceptable IJ Removal Plan. On 09/20/24 at 2:43 PM, the survey team validated the facility's corrective actions and verified the facility had corrected their noncompliance and the IJ was identified at Past Non Compliance (PNC) as of 08/07/24. An extended survey was conducted in conjunction with the Complaint Survey for non-compliance at F600, constituting substandard Quality of Care. Findings include: A review of the facility policy titled Abuse Policy with a revision date of 11/2017, revealed, This facility recognizes that each resident has the right to be free from all types of abuse including verbal, sexual, physical . The facility also recognizes that the residents must not be subjected to abuse by anyone, including, but not limited to facility staff . 5. PHYSICAL ABUSE includes but is not limited to, hitting, slapping, punching, biting, and kicking. Review of R73's Face Sheet revealed R73 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including, but not limited to: dementia, moderate, with other behavioral disturbance symptoms and signs involving cognitive functions following cerebrovascular disease, major depressive disorder, pseudobulbar affect, and mood disorder. Review of R73's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 07/03/24, revealed R73 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 4 out of 15, indicating severe cognitive impairment. Review of R10's Face Sheet revealed R10 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including, but not limited to: dementia with behavioral disturbance, diabetes mellitus, chronic pain, anxiety disorder, and major depressive disorder. Review of R10's Quarterly MDS with an ARD of 08/30/24, revealed a BIMS score of 99, indicating severe cognitive impairment. Review of R479's Face Sheet revealed R479 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including, but not limited to: chronic pain, schizophrenia, unspecified behavioral and emotional disorders with onset usually occurring in childhood and adolescence, and insomnia. Review of R479's admission MDS with an ARD of 07/18/24, revealed a BIMS score of 10 out of 15 indicating moderately impaired cognition. Review of the Local Sheriff's Office Incident Report dated 08/02/24 revealed, Offense - Simple Assault. On 08/03/2024, a Deputy with the Local Sheriff's Office was dispatched to 1527 Urbana Rd (Lake [NAME] Nursing Care Facility) in the [NAME] area of Clarendon County SC in reference to an Assault. Upon arrival, the Deputy contacted [Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)4] the head nurse of the facility at the time. [LPN4] stated that 3 of her co-workers came to her to report an assault on a resident by another co-worker. The co-worker who assaulted the resident was identified as [CNA1]. Deputy identified the 3 co-workers as [CNA2], [CNA3], and [CNA4] that were witnesses to the assault . The case is active for offenses of Simple assault. A review of witness statements revealed the following: On 08/02/24, CNA2 revealed, [R73] didn't want to get in the shower after he pooped on himself. [CNA1 and CNA3] and I was trying to talk to him to get in the shower, but he was very stubborn. Me and [CNA3] started to talk to him calmly. [CNA1] grabbed his hand to assist him in the shower. As I was getting more gloves, I saw [R73] on the floor. He started to cry. Me and [CNA3] got him off the floor and [R73] stated, I don't want him [CNA1] around me. After we calmed him down, I had no choice but to clean him up. [R73] finally calmed down and had a great night. Registered Nurse (RN)1's statement revealed, On the above date (7.29.2024 7A-7P), a little after supper [CNA2 and CNA4] pulled me into an empty room. They proceeded to tell me that they witnessed (orderly) [CNA1] being abusive towards residents. They stated that the orderly hit the resident in 107A in the face with a closed fist and also saw him hit the resident in 111 in the face with his gloves. I immediately took them both to the unit manager's office so that they could make her aware of what they witnessed, I have not personally witnessed or heard any physical or verbal abuse towards residents during my shift. CNA4's statement dated 08/02/24, revealed, On August 1st, 2024, [CNA1] assisted me with changing [R10], and in the process, he [CNA1] punched [R10] on the head with his fist. I thought it was a mix-up or something, so I didn't report it that night. The following day August 2nd 2024, [CNA3], [CNA1] and I changed [R10] and again, he [CNA1] punched her on the head with his fist. Another incident happened that night while attempting to change [R479], as she is a 3-person assist. [CNA1] hit her with the bed remote and slapped her in the face with his gloves. CNA3's statement dated 08/02/24, revealed, [R73] has messed [sic] in his pants and did not want to take a shower for [CNA1]. [CNA2] and I were there for assistance. [R73] was refusing to take a shower and [CNA1] grabbed [R73] by the arm to back in the shower when [R73] had fallen to the floor. While on the floor, [CNA1] hit [R73] on the side of his face. [R73] was crying and stated he never wants [CNA1] to touch him again. [CNA2] stayed with [R73]. [CNA1] apologized and said it would not happen again and feeling sorry for him and his circumstances I did not immediately report the incident. However, there was another incident, and I did report it. Review of a second employee statement form written by CNA3 dated 08/02/24, revealed, Tonight while assisting [CNA4] with [R10]. [CNA1] entered the room to help us, while in the room [CNA1] hit [R10] on the side of her head with his fist. Also, tonight while assisting [CNA1] with [R479], [CNA1] hit [R479] with the bed remote and hit her with his gloves in her face. Review of CNA1's statement dated 08/05/24, revealed an interview with CNA1 conducted face to-face with the Director of Nursing (DON) and Administrator. CNA1 was placed on administrative leave Friday 08/02/24, after allegations of abuse were reported. He verbalized assisting with the care of R73 in the shower, he reports catching the resident's arm in an attempt to keep him from falling but denies striking him in any way. Regarding R10, he reports assisting with changing her clothes and getting her ready for bed and denies hitting her in the head. In the care of R479, he reports assisting with getting her in the bed via Hoyer, denies hitting her in the head with the bed remote, and slapping her in the face with his gloves. An attempted interview on 09/19/24 at 9:29 AM, with R479 was unsuccessful as the resident is non-interviewable. An attempted interview on 09/19/24 at 9:39 AM, with R10 was unsuccessful as the resident is non-interviewable. During an interview on 09/19/24 at 9:55 AM, CNA3 verified and confirmed the allegations of abuse in her statement. Attempt to interview via phone with CNA2 on 09/19/2024 at 11:08 AM, was unsuccessful. Attempt to interview via phone with RN1 on 09/19/2024 at 11:10 AM, was unsuccessful. Attempt to interview via phone with CNA4 on 09/19/2024 at 12:06 PM, was unsuccessful. Attempt to interview with CNA1 via phone on 09/19/2024 at 12:24 PM, was unsuccessful. During a phone interview on 09/18/24 at 11:01 AM, R73's daughter revealed, There is one staff member there that I've always had questions about. One Sunday, not too long ago, my brother and I went to visit my dad in his room. I asked the CNA, if my dad has gotten a shower, the CNA closed the door to his room and replied to my brother and I, when I make him. R73's daughter further stated, I thought that was kind of strange the way he said it. His name is [CNA1's first name]. My dad was abused at the previous facility by staff, and this just rubbed me the wrong way when he said that. During an interview on 09/19/24 at 12:39 PM, LPN4 revealed, CNA1 was starting to act unusual, and nervous, with his bookbag. It was almost like he knew something was up. LPN4 stated she let him go after telling CNA1 he was under investigation, for an allegation of abuse, and someone would be contacting him including police and administrative staff. LPN4 further stated the facility Administrator gave phone orders, to call the police and have them come to the facility to do a report. LPN4 stated he told him to pack his things, and he needed to call someone to pick him up because he could not be on the property. LPN4 stated CNA1 was asking questions such as What did I do, and that's all he said, he didn't argue, he called his mom and left. LPN4 stated as soon as CNA1 left she ran in the building and locked the door. The deputy came onsite and interviewed LPN4 as to why he was being dispatched. The deputy interviewed all witnesses separately. LPN4 stated all the residents involved were not cognitive enough to replay the encounter with the alleged perpetrator. During an interview on 09/19/24 at 1:30 PM, with the Administrator and Director of Nursing (DON). The Administrator revealed a call was received from LPN4, stating that CNA3 and CNA4 had reported that CNA1 tapped several residents on the head. At that time, the tap was reported on R73 and R10. The Administrator stated she asked LPN4 what do the staff mean by tap, LPN4 replied, I'm not sure, however, the witnesses are in the office. The Administrator stated she requested CNA3 to get on the phone and CNA3 described tap as a punch. The Administrator told LPN4 to try to keep CNA1 in the building and call law enforcement to have them come out to the facility. The Administrator stated that CNA1 was gone when law enforcement arrived. The deputy interviewed all witnesses, separately. The Administrator further stated she doesn't believe the abuse occurred and to her knowledge, there was no bad blood within the CNAs. CNA1 denied the physical abuse, however, confirmed that he did provide care to the three residents. On 09/20/24 at 2:40 PM, the facility provided an IJ Removal Plan, which included the following: 1. Residents #10, #73, and #479 were assessed by the Assistant Director of Nursing and another License Nurse on 8/2/2024 to verify injury. No signs or symptoms of abuse were present . CNA1, the accused, was removed from the facility on 08/02/2024 and has not been in the facility since then. He was placed on immediate suspension pending the results of the investigation. On 08/05/2024, CNA1, who was on a probationary period, was terminated from employment related to work performance. 2. The facility has determined that all residents have the potential to be affected by alleged abuse. All residents with who had ever been assigned to or near the accused CNA were interviewed on 8/3/2024 by the Administrator to assess any further allegations of abuse. There were no further concerns reported by any residents. On 8/2/2024, body audits were completed by the Assistant Director of Nursing and a Licensed nurse to assess all residents for any signs or symptoms of abuse, with no findings of injury. 3. On 8/3/2024, an in-service education program was conducted by the Director of Nursing Services and the Administrator with all direct care staff regarding abuse prevention, including the types of abuse, and burnout, as well as addressing circumstances that require reporting including appropriate timeframes. On 8/7/2024, after completion of the investigation, CNAs 3 and 4 were provided additional one-to-one education and disciplinary actions regarding failure to report a suspicion or allegation of abuse immediately. Both CNAs expressed an understanding of this requirement. 4. The Director of Nursing Services, or designee, will continue to conduct audits of five (5) residents weekly for four (4) consecutive weeks. These residents will be assessed and interviewed to ensure that any allegations of abuse are identified, properly investigated and reported to the appropriate people. Further feedback and assurance will be solicited via the facility grievance process and Resident Council. Any findings, allegations, or suspicions of abuse will be immediately reported and investigated per Federal and State regulations. Results of audits and resident feedback will be monitored by the facility QAPI team to ensure compliance is maintained. Corrective action completion date: 8/7/2024.
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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of facility policy, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to protect residents from further abuse, ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of facility policy, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to protect residents from further abuse, after multiple staff witnessed Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA)1 physically abuse multiple residents and did not report the physical abuse. On 09/20/24 at 11:04 AM, the Administrator and the DON were additionally notified that the failure of staff to report an initial incident of physical abuse, which resulted in further physical abuse, constituted IJ at F609. On 09/20/24 at 11:04 AM, the survey team provided the Administrator with a copy of the CMS Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) Template and informed the facility IJ existed as of 07/30/24. The IJ was related to 42 CFR 483.12- Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation. On 09/20/24 at 2:40 PM, the facility provided an acceptable IJ Removal Plan. On 09/20/24 at 2:43 PM, the survey team validated the facility's corrective actions and verified the facility had corrected their noncompliance and the IJ was identified at Past Non Compliance (PNC) as of 08/07/24. An extended survey was conducted in conjunction with the Complaint Survey for non-compliance at F609, constituting substandard Quality of Care. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Abuse Policy with a revision date of 11/2017, revealed, 1. All reported allegations of suspected abuse will be investigated immediately. I. REPORTING OF ALLEGED VIOLATIONS 1. All alleged violations (including mistreatment, neglect or abuse, injuries of unknown origin, and misappropriation of resident property) shall be reported immediately to the administrator the state agency, and other agencies as required. Review of R73's Face Sheet revealed R73 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including, but not limited to: dementia, moderate, with other behavioral disturbance symptoms and signs involving cognitive functions following cerebrovascular disease, major depressive disorder, pseudobulbar affect, and mood disorder. Review of R10's Face Sheet revealed R10 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including, but not limited to: dementia with behavioral disturbance, diabetes mellitus, chronic pain, anxiety disorder, and major depressive disorder. Review of R479's Face Sheet revealed R479 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including, but not limited to: chronic pain, schizophrenia, unspecified behavioral and emotional disorders with onset usually occurring in childhood and adolescence, and insomnia. During a phone interview on 09/18/2024 at 11:01 AM, R73's daughter revealed, she received a phone call from Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)4 that an allegation of abuse had occurred on the unit back in August 2024. R73's daughter stated it was not forthcoming that R73 was a victim of abuse. R73's daughter stated a few days later, after the fact, the facility administrator called her and stated she had been the victim of an alleged abuse, body checks were done on R73 and showed nothing. During a phone interview on 09/20/24 at 12:59 PM, R10's son revealed, the facility called him to report that there is an allegation of abuse being investigated in the facility, the day of the allegation in question. R10's son stated the facility did not inform him that his mother was one of the victims during this time. R10's son reveals that 4 to 5 days after the initial contact, the facility informed him that his mother was one of the victims of the alleged abuse investigation. R10's son concluded he would have liked to have been informed of his mother's involvement the day the incident allegedly happened. During a phone interview on 09/20/24 at 12:24 PM, R479's husband and daughter revealed, the only notification he received came from his wife, while the daughter expressed that this was the first time she had heard about the allegation. Review of CNA4's Statement dated 08/02/24, revealed, On August 1st, 2024, [CNA1] assisted me with changing [R10], and in the process, he [CNA1] punched [R10] on the head with his fist. I thought it was a mix-up or something, so I didn't report it that night. The following day August 2nd 2024, [CNA3], [CNA1] and I changed [R10] and again, he [CNA1] punched her on the head with his fist. Another incident happened that night while attempting to change [R479], as she is a 3-person assist. [CNA1] hit her with the bed remote and slapped her in the face with his gloves. Attempt to interview CNA4 on 09/19/24 at 12:06 PM, was unsuccessful. Review of CNA3's statement dated 08/02/24, revealed, [R73] has messed [sic] in his pants and did not want to take a shower for [CNA1]. [CNA2] and I were there for assistance. [R73] was refusing to take a shower and [CNA1] grabbed [R73] by the arm to back in the shower when [R73] had fallen to the floor. While on the floor, [CNA1] hit [R73] on the side of his face. [R73] was crying and stated he never wants [CNA1] to touch him again. [CNA2] stayed with [R73]. [CNA1] apologized and said it would not happen again and feeling sorry for him and his circumstances I did not immediately report the incident. However, there was another incident, and I did report it. Review of a second employee statement form written by CNA3 dated 08/02/24, revealed, Tonight while assisting [CNA4] with [R10]. [CNA1] entered the room to help us, while in the room [CNA1] hit [R10] on the side of her head with his fist. Also, tonight while assisting [CNA1] with [R479], [CNA1] hit [R479] with the bed remote and hit her with his gloves in her face. During an interview on 09/19/24 at 9:55 AM, CNA3 verified and confirmed the allegations of abuse in her statement. During an interview on 09/19/24 at 1:30 PM, the Administrator revealed she asked CNA3 why she didn't report the abuse the first time on 07/30/24 and CNA3 stated she felt sorry for CNA1 because he was homeless and lived in a hotel. The Administrator stated she doesn't believe the abuse occurred. The Administrator further stated her expectation for staff is to immediately report to a supervisor to ensure residents are safe. On 09/20/24 at 2:40 PM, the facility provided an IJ Removal Plan, which included the following: 1. Residents #10, #73, and #479 were assessed by the Assistant Director of Nursing and another License Nurse on 8/2/2024 to verify injury. No signs or symptoms of abuse were present . CNA1, the accused, was removed from the facility on 08/02/2024 and has not been in the facility since then. He was placed on immediate suspension pending the results of the investigation. On 08/05/2024, CNA1, who was on a probationary period, was terminated from employment related to work performance. 2. The facility has determined that all residents have the potential to be affected by alleged abuse. All residents with who had ever been assigned to or near the accused CNA were interviewed on 8/3/2024 by the Administrator to assess any further allegations of abuse. There were no further concerns reported by any residents. On 8/2/2024, body audits were completed by the Assistant Director of Nursing and a Licensed nurse to assess all residents for any signs or symptoms of abuse, with no findings of injury. 3. On 8/3/2024, an in-service education program was conducted by the Director of Nursing Services and the Administrator with all direct care staff regarding abuse prevention, including the types of abuse, and burnout, as well as addressing circumstances that require reporting including appropriate timeframes. On 8/7/2024, after completion of the investigation, CNAs 3 and 4 were provided additional one-to-one education and disciplinary actions regarding failure to report a suspicion or allegation of abuse immediately. Both CNAs expressed an understanding of this requirement. 4. The Director of Nursing Services, or designee, will continue to conduct audits of five (5) residents weekly for four (4) consecutive weeks. These residents will be assessed and interviewed to ensure that any allegations of abuse are identified, properly investigated and reported to the appropriate people. Further feedback and assurance will be solicited via the facility grievance process and Resident Council. Any findings, allegations, or suspicions of abuse will be immediately reported and investigated per Federal and State regulations. Results of audits and resident feedback will be monitored by the facility QAPI team to ensure compliance is maintained. Corrective action completion date: 8/7/2024.
Sept 2023 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

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 implement interventions o...

Read full inspector narrative →
**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 implement interventions outlined in Resident (R)1's Care Plan, for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for falls. Specifically, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA)1 was providing care to R1. R1 fell out of bed and suffered a laceration and bruising to the forehead. Findings include: Review of the undated facility policy titled, Incidents and Accidents revealed, Assuring that appropriate and immediate interventions are implemented and corrective actions are taken to prevent recurrences and improve the management of resident care. Review of R1's Face Sheet revealed R1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including but not limited to; dysuria, gout, depression, anxiety, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, dementia, muscle weakness, and cognitive communication deficit. Review of R1's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) date of 04/20/23 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 0 out of 15, indicating R1 has severe cognitive impairment. Further review of the MDS revealed under functional abilities and goals, R1 requires a two-person physical assist with bed mobility, transfer, toileting, and bathing. Review of R1's Care Plan with an ongoing date of 11/14/22 documented, Falls: Resident is at risk for falls with fall related injury to Alzheimer's, dependent transfers, poor safety awareness, vitamin D deficiency. Goal: Residents risk for falls/injury will be minimized with intervention. Interventions: . 10/5/22 with pressure reducing cushion; Hoyer lift or two person assist transfers; and 2 staff for ADL's requiring bed mobility/transfers updated 06/19/23. Review of R1's Progress Note dated 06/18/23 revealed, CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) called Nurse to room stating while doing [R1] care she rolled out of the bed. CNA attempted to catch her to stop the fall but [R1] hit her head on the frame of the bed and sustained a small laceration to the left eyebrow. The area was cleaned with wound cleanser, dressing and ice pack was applied. The Medical Doctor was made aware, order received to transfer resident to emergency room. Resident representative was made aware. Neuro check started and was within normal limit. [R1] was transferred to [local hospital] emergency room via 911. [R1] left via rescue awake, verbally responding. Review of R1's Progress Note dated 06/19/23 (Late entry 06/18/23) revealed, [R1] returned from [local hospital] with the following diagnosis: 1.) Head injury 2.) Laceration to forehead. [R1] had clear dressing to left forehead above eye with approximately 5 sutures. [R1] left forehead was black and blue with some swelling. [R1] complained about eye pain. In an interview on 09/20/23 at 12:15 PM, CNA1 stated she was changing R1. R1 rolled over and her glove got stuck, and the bed/mattress began to slide. CNA1 further stated R1's head fell forward and hit the post of her roommate's bed, but she held the rest of R1's body and lowered R1 to the floor. CNA1 concluded that R1 has always been a 1- person assist. In an interview on 09/20/23 at 12:19 PM, LPN1 revealed she was called in the residents room by CNA1, who stated R1 had fell. LPN1 stated when she went into the room, R1 was already back in bed. LPN1 further stated she was familiar with R1's care and R1 was a 1- person assist at the time of fall.
Aug 2022 2 deficiencies
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 observations, interviews, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to maintain clean oxygen concentrator e...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to maintain clean oxygen concentrator equipment, specifically filters, for 1 (Resident (R28) of 2 residents reviewed for respiratory services in a total sample of 19 residents. The facility's deficient practice had the potential to expose R28 to respiratory irritants and/or respiratory distress. Findings include: Review of the undated policy, titled, Oxygen Concentrator revealed An oxygen concentrator is a medical device that extracts oxygen from room air by filtering out or separating the nitrogen from the oxygen. The oxygen passes through a filter within the device for delivery based on the flow meter setting . follow manufacturer recommendations for frequency of cleaning filters . Review of the undated document titled Preventive Maintenance revealed . Clean or replace gross particle (cabinet) filters on both side of the cabinet . Perform this procedure as needed depending on the environment the concentrator is used in . Review of R28's undated Face Sheet revealed R28 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of R28's Diagnoses heading on the Face Sheet revealed R28 had multiple diagnoses to include; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). During an observation on 08/15/22 at 2:30 PM, R28 was receiving oxygen administered via nasal cannula. Observation of the two filters (right side and left side) on R28's oxygen concentrator revealed the filters were not clean and were covered with dust particles. During a second observation on 08/16/22 at 11:50 AM, R28 was receiving oxygen administered via nasal cannula. Observation of the two filters (right and left side) on R28's oxygen concentrator revealed the filters were not clean and were covered with dust particles. During a third observation on 08/16/22 at 4:44 PM with the Unit Manager (UM), the UM confirmed the two filters on R28's oxygen concentrator were not clean and were covered with dust. The UM confirmed the nursing staff were expected to clean the resident's oxygen concentrator filters weekly and as needed. The UM stated the night shift nursing staff were responsible for cleaning R28's oxygen concentrator filters. Review of R28's Orders tab Current eMar [electronic medication administration record]/eTAR [electronic treatment administration record] Report August 2022 revealed . OXYGEN 2-4 LITERS VIA N/C CONTINUOUS . and no directive for cleaning oxygen filters. Review of R28's physician's Orders tab in the EMR revealed . OXYGEN 2-4 LITERS VIA N/C CONTINUOUS 12/13/20 . CHANGE O2 TUBING AND HUMIDIFIER BOTTLE WEEKLY ON SUNDAY 10/25/20 . but no order for maintaining/cleaning R28's oxygen concentrator filters. Review of R28's Care Plan tab revealed a Comprehensive Care Plan that included . RISK OF RESP DISTRESS WILL BE MINIMIZED . CHANGE O2 HUMIDIFIER Q 7 DAYS WHILE IN USE 12/01/22 . Oxygen 2-4 liters via n/c continuous 12/01/20 . but no intervention for cleaning or changing oxygen concentrator filters. On 08/16/22, the UM verified R28's electronic medical record (EMR) Medication Administration Record (MAR) and Treatment Administration Record (TAR) for the month of August 2022 did not have a directive to clean R28's oxygen filters. The UM verified R28's EMR under the Order tab had no physician's order to clean R28's oxygen concentrator filters. UM verified R28's Care Plan in his EMR under the Care Plan tab did not have an intervention to clean R28's oxygen concentrator filters. During an interview on 08/17/22 at 4:37 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed nursing staff were responsible for cleaning oxygen concentrator filters once a week and as needed. DON confirmed the potential risk (for the facility not cleaning residents' oxygen concentrator filters) was improper function of the oxygen concentrator and resident's exposure to respiratory irritants and respiratory distress.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0925 (Tag F0925)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on review of the facility policy, observations, and interview, the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program. Specifically, roaches were in a resident's (Resident) R28) oxyge...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on review of the facility policy, observations, and interview, the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program. Specifically, roaches were in a resident's (Resident) R28) oxygen concentrator and on R49's wall in his room. The facility's deficient practice had the potential for roaches to infest the facility and affect all 66 resident's residing in the facility. Findings include: Review of an undated policy titled, Pest Control revealed . Our facility shall maintain an effective pest control program . Maintenance services assist, when appropriate and necessary, in providing pest control services . During a medication administration observation on 08/16/22 at 4:27 PM in R49's room, four roaches were observed crawling up R49's wall next to his television. During an observation on 08/16/22 at 4:44 PM with the Unit Manager (UM) in R28's room, the UM confirmed that when R28's oxygen concentrator was moved up several roaches scattered underneath it. The UM stated he would inform the maintenance department regarding the roaches. During an interview on 08/17/22 at 2:18 PM, the Maintenance Director (MD) stated he was aware of roaches in R28's and R49's rooms and that the exterminator sprayed both rooms on 08/17/22. The MD confirmed the exterminator sprayed certain rooms monthly for roaches, but not the entire facility. During a second observation on 08/17/22 at 2:30 PM with MD in R28's room, R28's oxygen concentrator was moved, and several roaches scattered and ran on the floor. The MD verified the observation of roaches. On 08/17/22 at 2:53 PM, while the MD moved R28's oxygen concentrator, which was next to the nurses' station and medication cart, to outside the building, roaches were observed coming out of R28's oxygen concentrator onto the floor and running down the hallway. The MD verified this observation. During an interview on 08/17/22 at 3:14 PM, the Housekeeping Director (HD) stated R49 had roaches in his clothes, in his room closet and that he reported it to the MD. The HD was unsure of the day he reported to the MD. During an interview on 08/17/22 at 3:29 PM, Housekeeping (HK)1 confirmed she saw roaches in R28's and in R49's rooms (approximately on 08/15/22 ) that week. Review of a facility provided document, dated 08/17/22, titled CUSTOMER SERVICE REPORT revealed . Rooms serviced today: 106,111,112,128,134, 137,140, 141 . No cockroach activity was noted during the inspection and/or service . TARGET PEST: cockroaches APPLICATION METHOD: Spot . Further review of this document revealed both R28 and R49's rooms were treated for roaches on 08/17/22. During an interview on 08/17/22 at 4:37 PM, the Director of Nurses (DON) confirmed the roaches in R28's oxygen concentrator increased his risk for respiratory infections. The DON confirmed the pest control service spot spraying certain rooms and not the entire facility was not controlling the roach problem. During an interview on 08/17/22 at 6:08 PM, the Administrator confirmed she was made aware of R28's infestation of roaches in his oxygen concentrator. The Administrator confirmed the facility should not have roach infestations in resident's oxygen concentrators or any other area of the facility. The Administrator confirmed the facility's pest control company services were not controlling the facility's pest problem.
May 2021 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview, record review and review of facility policy and procedure the facility failed to ensure the availability of a prescribed narcotic for one of five residents reviewed for unnecessary...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, record review and review of facility policy and procedure the facility failed to ensure the availability of a prescribed narcotic for one of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. (Resident #5) The findings are: On 05/19/21 at 09:54 am record review of Resident #5 was admitted with the diagnoses including but not limited to Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Unspecified glaucoma, Elevated blood-pressure reading, Anxiety disorder, unspecified osteoarthritis, Difficulty in walking, Arthropathy, Trigeminal neuralgia, Heart failure, Unsteadiness on feet, Muscle weakness, and unspecified dementia without behavioral disturbance. On 05/19/21 at 10:00 am review of the electronic medication administration record (E-MAR) revealed an order for Fentanyl 12 mcg (microgram)/hr (hour) patch apply one patch to skin every three days/72 hrs (hours) as ordered. Rotate application sites and remove old patch before placing new one. Review of the E-MAR denoted that on 04/20/2021 the Fentanyl patch was not administered with no nursing documentation for the non administration. Review of the narcotic inventory record revealed the resident received a patch on 04/17/2021 and then again on 04/23/2021. On 05/19/21 at 12:43 pm interview with Registered Nurse #1 revealed the nurse should have documented by the medication why it was not given. Further information also revealed that the order for the medication was not received and filled at the pharmacy until 04/21/2021. Facility policy, Medication Administration-General Guidelines, D. Documentation. 7. If a dose of regularly scheduled medication is withheld, refused, not available, or given at a time other than the scheduled time (e.g., the resident is not in the facility at scheduled dose time, or a starter dose of antibiotic is needed), the space provided on the MAR for that dosage administration is initialed and circled if using a paper MAR, if electronic MAR follow manual's direction for documentation of such. An explanatory note is entered on the MAR. If there is consistent incident of medication being withheld, refused, not available or given at the time scheduled the physician should be notified of such. The reporting and instruction should be documented in the resident's medical record .
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?"
  • "What safeguards are in place to prevent abuse and neglect?"
  • "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: Federal abuse finding, 2 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 7 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $15,646 in fines. Above average for South Carolina. Some compliance problems on record.
  • • Grade F (19/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: This facility has a substantiated abuse finding. Extreme caution advised. Explore alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Lake Marion Nursing Facility's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns Lake Marion Nursing Facility an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered 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 Lake Marion Nursing Facility Staffed?

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

What Have Inspectors Found at Lake Marion Nursing Facility?

State health inspectors documented 7 deficiencies at Lake Marion Nursing Facility during 2021 to 2025. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 5 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 Lake Marion Nursing Facility?

Lake Marion Nursing Facility is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 88 certified beds and approximately 73 residents (about 83% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in Summerton, South Carolina.

How Does Lake Marion Nursing Facility Compare to Other South Carolina Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in South Carolina, Lake Marion Nursing Facility's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (46%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Lake Marion Nursing Facility?

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?" "What safeguards and monitoring systems are in place to protect residents from abuse or neglect?" "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 substantiated abuse finding on record.

Is Lake Marion Nursing Facility Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, Lake Marion Nursing Facility has documented safety concerns. The facility has 1 substantiated abuse finding (meaning confirmed case of resident harm by staff or other residents). Inspectors have issued 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 2-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 Lake Marion Nursing Facility Stick Around?

Lake Marion Nursing Facility has a staff turnover rate of 46%, 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 Marion Nursing Facility Ever Fined?

Lake Marion Nursing Facility has been fined $15,646 across 2 penalty actions. This is below the South Carolina average of $33,235. 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 Lake Marion Nursing Facility on Any Federal Watch List?

Lake Marion Nursing Facility 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.