OAKBROOK HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER

920 TRAVELERS BOULEVARD, SUMMERVILLE, SC 29485 (843) 875-9053
For profit - Limited Liability company 88 Beds FUNDAMENTAL HEALTHCARE Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
18/100
#161 of 186 in SC
Last Inspection: February 2025

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

Overview

Oakbrook Health and Rehabilitation Center has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. Ranking #161 out of 186 facilities in South Carolina places it in the bottom half, and #3 out of 4 in Dorchester County means only one local option is better. The facility is worsening, with issues increasing from 2 in 2024 to 7 in 2025, highlighting a troubling trend. Staffing is a major weakness, with a poor rating of 1 out of 5 stars and a turnover rate of 60%, which is above the state average of 46%. Additionally, the center has incurred $29,188 in fines, which is concerning and indicates compliance problems, and there is less RN coverage than 77% of state facilities, meaning residents may not receive the level of care they need. Specific incidents of concern include a critical finding where a resident was able to leave the facility unsupervised, posing a serious safety risk, and a serious issue where a resident did not receive necessary tube feeding, causing a drop in blood sugar levels. Another serious finding involved a resident experiencing significant pain that was not adequately managed. While there are some average quality measures, the overall picture suggests that families should thoroughly consider these serious issues before making a decision.

Trust Score
F
18/100
In South Carolina
#161/186
Bottom 14%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
2 → 7 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
60% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
$29,188 in fines. Lower than most South Carolina facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 20 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for South Carolina. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
○ Average
10 deficiencies on record. Average for a facility this size. Mostly minor or procedural issues.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Staff Levels
★★★☆☆
3.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 2 issues
2025: 7 issues

The Good

  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

1-Star Overall Rating

Below South Carolina average (2.8)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Staff Turnover: 60%

14pts above South Carolina avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Federal Fines: $29,188

Below median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

Chain: FUNDAMENTAL HEALTHCARE

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

Staff turnover is elevated (60%)

12 points above South Carolina average of 48%

The Ugly 10 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening 2 actual harm
Jul 2025 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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Someone could have died · 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 provide appropriate supervision for Res...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to provide appropriate supervision for Resident (R)1, resulting in R1 successfully eloping from the facility on 06/22/25.On 07/15/25 at 1:51 PM, the State Agency (SA) determined that the facility's non-compliance with one or more federal health, safety, and/or quality regulations had caused or was likely to cause serious injury, serious harm, serious impairment, or death.On 07/15/25 at 1:55 PM, the survey team provided the Administrator with a copy of the CMS Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) Template and informed the facility that IJ existed as of 6/22/25. The IJ was related to 42 CFR 483.25 - Free of Accident Hazards/Supervision/Devices.On 07/15/25 at 4:17 PM, the facility provided an acceptable IJ Removal Plan. On 07/15/25 at 4:17 PM, the survey team validated the facility's corrective actions and determined the facility put forth due diligence in identifying and addressing the non-compliance. The SA is considering this as Past Non-Compliance as of 06/23/25.An Extended Survey was conducted in addition to the Complaint Survey for F689, constituting substandard quality of care.Findings Include:Review of the facility policy titled Elopement with a complete revision date of 11/01/17, states, To safely and timely redirect patients/residents to a safe environment.Review of R1's Face Sheet revealed R1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including but not limited to: other speech and language deficits following cerebral infarction, symptoms and signs involving cognitive functions following cerebral infarction, orthostatic hypotension, cognitive communication deficit, unsteadiness on feet, and abnormalities of gait and mobility. Review of R1's Quarterly Minimal Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date of 06/10/25, revealed R1 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 5 out of 15, which indicated R1 had severe cognitive impairment. Further review of the MDS revealed that R1 had wandering behaviors during the assessment period.Review of Quarterly Nursing - Elopement Risk Observation dated 6/11/25, revealed R1 requires frequent redirection.Review of R1's Care Plan with revealed the following active problems, [R1] is at risk for falls R/T wondering the halls DX: decreased cognion, CVA, Seizures with a start date of 06/16/25, [R1] has displayed signs or symptoms of delirium: New or ACUTELY worsening confusion, disorderly expressions of thought, change in level of consciousness or hallucinations with a start date of 06/16/25, [R1] wanders throughout the facility and recently displayed exit seeking behavior, as evidenced by exiting facility, is a risk for 1. Elopement 2. Entering into others private space 3. Increased fall risk. Related to diagnosis of CVA. with a start date of 06/12/25.Review of R1's Progress Notes dated 06/22/25 revealed, 9:43 PM- At approximately 8:10 PM Staff left resident outside to sit on the porch; resident sat in rocking chair. After a few minutes staff seen resident get up and walk across the lawn to stand on the sidewalk. CNA reported to this nurse that resident was outside on the sidewalk walking, this nurse and other staff immediately went outside to assist resident back into the building. Resident was easily redirected and was brought back in the facility. NP did a skin assessment NAD. Upon speaking with resident NP had concerns regarding resident mental status, flat facial affect NP noted resident began staring blankly at her, hands trembling, body shaking. NP sent resident out for a psych evaluation. Resident left facility via stretcher at 9:35 PM DON aware. Resident's brother made aware of resident's transfer to TRMC for psych eval.Review of R1's Progress Notes dated 06/22/25 at 3:00 PM, revealed, Progress note to clarify events of 6/22/25 after interviews and further investigation. Event: an employee exited the facility front doors after entering the code. A visitor entered the facility before the doors automatically lock down. After the visitor entered, the resident got up from his wheelchair and exited the building sitting in a rocking chair on the front porch. The witness was an alert and oriented resident. The alert resident stated R1 wheeled up to the front lobby and stated to the alert resident he was 'going home'. The alert res stated he told [R1] he shouldn't leave. The alert resident stated [R1] exited before he could stop him. The alert resident alerted staff who in turn alerted nursing staff who immediately went out of the facility to retrieve [R1]. The alert resident stated [R1] sat on the porch then got up and started walking to the front (driveway). The resident did walk down the side of the road for a short distance before staff could stop him. A nursing staff member picked up the resident in her car due to unsteady gate and risk for fall. [R1] was returned to the facility without incident. A skin assessment was completed. NP was in facility and examined the resident. Order received to transfer to ER due to resident's behavior: blank stare, flat affect, and body shaking. Returned from ER with no new orders and with 1:1 supervision.During a phone interview with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA)1 on 07/15/25 at 11:23 AM, CNA1 revealed that she was the CNA assigned to R1 on the day of the incident. She stated that she was changing another resident when one of the nurses asked her if she had seen R1 and then told her that they were looking for him. CNA1 stated that the last time she saw R1 was in the dining room. CNA1 proceeded to drive down to Arby's and Circle K in attempts to locate R1 but didn't see him. By the time she got back to the facility, R1 had been found. She was informed that R1 was sitting at the front door with another resident prior to walking out. CNA1 further stated he did not have any injuries upon return but kept wandering around the facility, so he was sent out to the ER for a psychiatric evaluation. CNA1 concluded that she isn't sure if any alarms went off, and she is unsure if he had on a wander guard. CNA1 revealed that R1 was out of the line of sight of facility staff during the elopement.During a phone interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)1 on 07/15/25 at 11:56 AM, LPN1 revealed that between 8 and 8:30 PM, a CNA came to the desk and told her that R1 walked outside. LPN1 then had all the CNAs go room to room to look for him. LPN1 and the Nurse Practitioner (NP) went out to the front door and a witnessing resident stated that R1 walked outside to the front porch after the door was opened for a visiting family member, he sat down for a few minutes and then got up and walked across the lawn. The NP, LPN1, multiple CNAs, and another nurse walked outside to look around the building. An agency nurse and another CNA drove in their vehicles to look for him. When R1 was located by a CNA, he told the CNA that he was trying to go to Arby's. Upon return to the facility, LPN1 completed a body audit, the NP spoke with him for 20 minutes, and he was sent out for a psych eval. The entire incident happened in less than an hour. LPN1 confirmed that R1 did get out of the line of sight of staff during the elopement. During an interview with the Administrator, in the presence of the Director of Nursing (DON) on 07/15/25 at 11:43 AM, it was revealed that she learned about the elopement when the DON called and notified her. The Administrator confirmed that R1 did elope out of the line of sight of staff members. A witnessing resident saw him sitting in the front before he left. R1 had no injuries upon return. He was located around the Arby's area, which is on the same side of the facility, so it is unlikely that R1 crossed any dangerous roads. Prior to the elopement, R1 was known to be a wanderer but at the time he wasn't exit-seeking. He always walked around the building but had never tried to leave up until this point. Elopement observations are completed for all residents upon admission. Elopement drills are done monthly for different shifts, and elopement precautions are spoken about during new hire orientation. There have been no more elopements since this incident.On 07/15/25 at 4:17 PM, the facility provided an acceptable IJ Removal Plan, which included the following:Resident #1 discharged home.Director of Nursing and Administrator were reeducated on the Elopement Policy and Process on 6/23/25 by the Clinical Consultant including: Completing the elopement risk evaluation thoroughly and implementing interventions based on risk identified. Documentation of exit seeking behavior and completing elopement risk evaluation for increased exit seeking behaviors.Elopement risk Assessments were reviewed for completion and accuracy on 6/23/25 by the Director of Nursing/Designee on current residents in facility to identify residents at risk for elopement. Those residents identified at risk had interventions validated and care plan updated on 6/23/25.Licensed Nurses were reeducated on the Elopement Policy and Process and Abuse & Neglect Policy on 6/23/25 by the Director of Nursing/Designee including: Completing the elopement risk evaluation thoroughly and implementing interventions based on risk identified. Documentation of exit seeking behavior and completing elopement risk evaluation for increased exit seeking behaviorsCertified Nursing Assistants were reeducated on Elopement Policy and Process and Abuse/Neglect on 6/23/25 by the Director of Nursing/Designee on 6/23/25.Target staff not receiving this education by 6/23/25 will receive prior to their next scheduled shift.An elopement Drill was completed on 6/23/25 with facility staff.Facility Activity Report and 24hour report will be reviewed Monday - Friday in clinical morning meeting to validate elopement assessments completed. The Director of Nursing/Designee will review completed elopement assessments Monday - Friday in clinical morning meeting to validate accuracy and interventions have been implemented if necessaryAd hoc QAPI held on 6/23/25.Medical Director was notified of the Immediate Jeopardy and the contents of this plan on 6/23/25.Date of alleged compliance: AOC 6/23/2025.
Feb 2025 6 deficiencies 2 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Tube Feeding (Tag F0693)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the facility policy, record review, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure Resident (R)2...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the facility policy, record review, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure Resident (R)281 received prescribed tube feeding for 1 of 1 resident receiving tube feeding. This failure caused R281's blood sugar levels to drop, warranting additional orders needing to be obtained to increase his blood sugar to an acceptable level. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Enteral and Parenteral Feedings, with a complete revision of May 5, 2023 revealed Nutritional complete enteral (tube) feedings may be indicated for residents who are unable to obtain adequate nutritional intake orally or whose clinical condition demonstrates that enteral feedings are unavoidable. Obtain a physicians order for all enteral feedings. Communicate orders with nutrition services. Monitor and report problems and complications to the Physician and nutrition services. Record review of R281's medical record revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis that include, but are not limited to malignant neoplasm of base of tongue, hypertension, and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Record review of R281's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score as 15, indicating R281 was cognitively intact. Record review of R281's Physician orders revealed enteral feeding Osmolite1.5 at 70 cubic centimeters (cc) an hour x 22 hours with 175 cc's every 4 hours water flush, every shift. Start feeding at 6:00 AM and stop feeding at 4:00 AM to give a total of 22 hours, dated 02/05/2025. Record review of R281's Physician orders revealed, Lantus U-100 Insulin give 14 units; subcutaneous, Special Instructions: If BS is <70 or >400 notify provider, at 09:00 AM. Record review of R281's Physician orders revealed Glutose-15 (dextrose) gel, 1 tube; oral once, one time. Start time, 5:30 PM. Record review of R281's progress note dated 02/10/2025 at 12:23 PM revealed, 9am (fasting blood sugar)FSBS 76 Insulin given as ordered. Order states to hold insulin if less 70. 11:40 AM FSBS 53 and 54. Glucagon 1 (milligram) mg given (subcutaneous) sc. 11:55am FSBS 63, 12N FSBS 64, 2nd Glucagon SC given 12:15PM FSBS 79 MD aware. Record review of R 281's progress note dated 02/10/2025 at 01:57 PM recorded, 1:55 FSBS 70. Record review of R281's progress note dated 02/10/2025 at 01:40 PM recorded, 12:30 FSBS 83. 1:30pm FSBS 67 MD notifed, received order for Glucose el 15 via g tube. Record review of a progress note dated 02/10/2025 at 05:26 PM recorded, FSBS 52-54 R281, alert and oriented x 4. Stated he had no discomfort. Nurse Practitioner (NP) notify received order for Glucose 15 gel via g tube. An observation and interview with R281 on 02/10/25 at 12:44 PM revealed, I feel better. My sugar was low. They gave me Glucatrol. I was laying in bed, they checked my sugar, it was low, they gave me insulin this morning. He said, I need to get food in me. He confirmed he cannot eat anything by mouth, but can have ice chips. Observed Osmolite 1.5, no rate on Osmolite bottle. A water bag marked 75cc/hour. Water was infusing at 174 milliliter (ml) every 4 hours per the rate on the pump. The pump was on, infusing water. An interview on 02/10/2025 at 12:55 PM with Registered Nurse (RN)1 revealed, His blood sugar (BS) was 76 at 11:40 AM. Then earlier it was 53. I got another machine, rechecked it, it was 54. Then I gave him Glucagon. He got a second shot of Glucagon. He is on tube feeding 22 hours, then off for 2 hours. R281 is aware of what's going on. He had insulin around 9 am, Lantus 14 units. His BS was 76, so I gave it. The last check it was 83. I told the nurse during an observation he was getting water, not feeding. She said, It will alternate for the flush. He is getting his feeding. On 02/10/2025 at 4:12 PM, an observation of R281's pump revealed water flush was still running. R281 said, It has been running clear, since you left earlier. This surveyor then went out to get the nurse. RN1 stated, His blood sugar is 72, it dropped from 80. I can't understand why his blood sugar is still dropping. This surveyor told RN1 the water flush has been running each time I entered the room. RN1 then stated, It should be alternating. This surveyor requested RN1 come to R281's room. R281 stated to RN1, It's been running clear since you were in here earlier. He confirmed that the feeding has not been running and he's been checking. He stated, I'm burning up. RN1said, I will turn off the pump and restart it, it may be the machine. On 02/11/2025 at 8:26 AM, during an interview with RN1, she stated, I turned the whole thing off and reset it. I didn't look at the machine when you came in. With your help I was able to figure it out. It was an education. It seemed to be a freak malfunction of the pump. I should have looked to see what was going in, I didn't even realize. She said, At 11:40 AM was the first Glucagon injection. The next was at 12:15 PM. I gave the glucose gel in the gastrotomy tube (G/T) at 5:32 PM. On 02/11/2025 at 9:05 AM, an interview with the Director of Nurses (DON) revealed, she was aware of R281's low blood sugar. She stated, My nurses use the pumps everyday. There is a way to go back and look in the history. If the resident has a G/T and the blood sugar was low, I'd look at the feeding to ensure that it has been running correctly and for the proper amount of time. It sounds like it was backwards. I can look at the pump history and try to figure out was was going on. A second interview with the DON on 02/11/2025 at 10:52 AM revealed, she went back 2 days, a total of 48 hours. She stated, R281 received TF, 1439 ml. He received 1394 ml of water for 48 hours. He received 609 ml of TF in 24 hours, it should have been 1540 ml of feeding. The water was 872 ml and he should have received 522 ml in the 48 hours. She said, My nurse said she didn't reset the settings. The MD went into the room and didn't notice it either. I appreciate you found it and talked to RN1 about it. We are continuing to monitor him for 72 hours. The Registered (RD) will be here today and will assess him. An interview was conducted on 02/11/2025 at 11:20 AM with the NP. She stated, The MD saw R281 yesterday and consulted with me about his blood sugar and insulin. She said she was going to drop his insulin according to his blood sugars dropping yesterday. Close to 8 pm I got a phone call that his blood sugar was dropping again. I asked, did anyone make sure his pump is running properly. The nurse said, yes I checked the pump. They had me on speaker. I asked multiple times, was it the tube feeding? MD's don't know how to check the pump. I ordered gel, his bs was in the 50s, I think 53. RN1 told me she checked the pump, looked to ensure it was running, and she said she didn't actually check to see if the TF was running versus the water. On 02/11/2025 at 11:42 AM, the DON returned and stated she was going to change out the pump on R281.
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Deficiency F0697 (Tag F0697)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the facility policy, record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident (R)58 ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the facility policy, record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident (R)58 was free from significant pain for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for pain. Findings include: Review of the facility policy with a complete revision date of May 5, 2023 titled, Pain Management revealed that Pain can be defined as an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage or described in terms of such damage. Pain is whatever the experiencing person says it is, existing whenever the experiencing person it does. Negative verbalizations and vocalizations, groaning, crying, whimpering or screaming. Facial expressions, grimacing, frowning, fright or clenching the jaw. Based on the evaluation, the IDT, resident physician, and the resident and or representative will develop, implement, monitor, and revise as necessary interventions to prevent or manage the residents pain. Record review of R58 revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis that include, but not limited to pain right knee, paraplegia, end stage renal disease and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Record review of R58's Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 01/04/2025 revealed a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13, revealing she was cognitively intact. Record review of R58's Physician's orders revealed she does not have anything ordered for pain. Record review of R58's Medication Administration Record (MAR) dated February 2025 revealed there was no pain monitoring recorded. Record review of a Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia Scale dated 01/20/2025 for R58, recorded a score of zero, indicating no pain. Record Review of Physician progress notes for R58, by Nurse Practitioner (NP) dated 02/02/2025 recorded, Able to demonstrate flexing both knees, left more than right. Admits to keeping right leg extended most of the time to avoid pain. Diagnosis: Right knee pain, unspecified chronicity. Past Medical History included lower extremity paralysis, chronic lower extremity paresis and deconditioning. New order, Tylenol 500 milligram, 2 tablets by mouth 3 times a day. During an interview on 02/09/25 at 1:44 PM, R58 stated, My right thigh, it hurts me. I take pain medication. A follow-up interview with R58 at 12:35 PM on 02/10/2025, when asked if she was well, as she was grimacing, she stated, I was sleeping and it woke me up. I can't hardly move it, it really hurts, it's so stiff, referring to her right knee as she was holding it and rubbing it. I've not had anything yet for pain. R58 said her pain was a 10 out of 10. R58 was observed wincing in pain, stating Lord, have mercy making facial grimaces. At 12:37 PM, this surveyor requested she put her call light on for assistance. At 12:38 PM, a Speech Therapist (ST) answered the call light. Overheard ST say to resident, Let me go get the nurse. At 12:42 PM, a nurse was observed entering the room. On 02/11/2025 at 8:59 AM, an interview with the ST revealed, Poor thing, she was in pain yesterday, her right leg. She had a lot of pain in the right and she couldn't move it too much. I grabbed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)3, she was behind me. We went into the room and then I left and let the nurse take care of her. She had facial grimacing and tears coming down. On 02/11/2025 at 9:44 AM, an interview with LPN3 revealed, She was complaining of her right knee hurting. I went to look, pulled the cover back. She cried when I put my hand on it, and she said, Ouch. I told her I will let the NP know. She was at the end of the hall seeing a patient. I told the NP, R58 was hurting, I asked her to please go into the room and look at her. I looked for pain medication and didn't see anything ordered. I gave the NP a note. A lot of times she [NP] will put a note in the computer after she goes home and write notes/orders. Later, I was doing a follow up and asked R58 did the NP come in and see her. I didn't ask her if she was in pain. She couldn't remember if the NP came into the room when I asked her. It was after dinner. On 02/11/2025 at 10:02 AM, an interview with the NP revealed, Yesterday they said they put in the book a note to see R58 for pain and I said I'd see her tomorrow. The knee pain is known, since I met her over a year ago. Now consistently, the last 2 visits, it's been knee pain. The NP reviewed her notes and stated, Oh yes, I ordered Tylenol. I put in an order electronically to the pharmacy. The system or internet will glitch, it will stay in queue. It appears to look like the order went through on my end, and then it didn't. I didn't realize her order didn't go through. I usually follow up a week later on her and had planned to see her. On 02/11/2025, an interview at 12:23 PM with the Director of Nurses (DON) revealed, I was helping the NP yesterday morning with her computer, orders weren't going through. She said she ordered Tylenol for R58. She should have pain monitoring on her MAR. That is a problem. The nurse should have followed up to be sure the order had gone through. R58's never complained of pain that I know of and she should have been followed up more closely. On 02/11/2025 at 12:30 PM, during an interview with R58, she stated, I've been in and out of the hospital so long, you just find a way to handle it and the pain. I just manage through it, crying and laying here. The last month or so, the right knee just gives me problems and it hurts. It's not as bad as it was right now. I can't remember if anyone ever gave me anything for it, I know I was crying.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0554 (Tag F0554)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the facility policy, record review, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that the envi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the facility policy, record review, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that the environment was free from accidents for Resident (R) 231. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Pharmacy Services Policies and Procedures. Subject: 4.4 Self-Administration of Medications dated 04/17/2024 stated, Procedures: 2. Interdisciplinary Care Team (IDT) assessment will be performed upon admission, readmission and quarterly with the MDS assessment for a resident choosing to self-administer . 3. Residents are not permitted to self-administer or store controlled substances at the bedside. Review of R231's Face Sheet revealed R231 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including but not limited to: presence of prosthetic heart valve, atherosclerotic heart disease of native coronary artery without angina pectoris, and allergic rhinitis. Review of R231's Physician Orders revealed no order for medication to be kept at the bedside, and no order for self-administration for R231. During an observation and interview on 02/09/25 at 11:03 AM, Fluticasone spray was observed in the windowsill with a prescription label. R231 stated that the spray was left in room for her to administer. During an observation and interview on 02/09/25 at 11:07 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)4 verified order for medication in computer and stated that R231 did not have an order to self-administer or to have medication left at bedside. LPN4 reported that the medication is over the counter and sometimes they leave it at bedside. During an interview on 02/11/25 at 11:58 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) reported that her expectations are that the nursing staff should not leave medications at bedside. They should observe the resident taking the medication and then the medication if not a pill would need to go back in the medication cart. She reported that they do have wandering residents. In addition, she reported that education was provide to the resident this morning to R231 because they found stool softener that the resident had family to bring in. She looked in the medical record and stated, I do not see an order for self-administration.
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 review of the facility policy, record review, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that Resident...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the facility policy, record review, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that Resident (R)34 was free of significant medication error for 1 of 1 reviewed for insulin administration. Findings include: Review of the facility policy: Staff education/orientation policies and procedures. Competency: Medication Administration-Insulin Pen dated 01/12/2024 stated, Performance Criteria: Priming the Pen: 1. Removes the outer needle cap and dials 2 units. 2. Points the pen up and presses the plunger button to expel 2 units of insulin. Review of R34's Face Sheet revealed R34 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of but not limited to: Hypoglycemia and Type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic neuropathy. Review of R34's Physician Orders revealed order for Insulin Lispro: Insulin pen give 3 units subcutaneous with meals at 8:00 AM, 11:30 AM, and 5:00 PM. Additionally Physician Orders revealed order for Insulin Lispro Insulin pen per sliding scale before meals and at bedtime at 6:00 AM, 11:30 AM, 4:30 PM, and 8:00 PM. If blood sugar is 201-250 give 4 units, 251-300 give 6 units, 301-350 give 8 units, 351-400 give 10 units, 401-450 give 12 units, 451-500 give 16 units. If greater than 500 call NP/PA. During an observation and interview on 02/09/25 at 4:00 PM, observed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)5 complete a Finger Stick Blood Sugar (FSBS) on R34. Blood sugar value observed to be 413. LPN5 administered a total of 15 units of insulin per orders, without priming the insulin pen. During an interview on 02/09/25 at 4:16 PM, LPN5 agreed that she should have primed the needle before dialing up the dose to be administered. During an interview on 02/09/25 at approximately 4:45 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed that on the check off titled, Staff Education/Orientation Competency: Medication Administration-Insulin Pen, priming the pen is part of the procedures in completing the task of administering insulin.
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 review of the facility policy, observations, record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that medicati...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the facility policy, observations, record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that medications were properly stored and labeled in 2 of 2 medication rooms and 2 of 3 medication carts. Findings include: A review of the facility policy entitled Medication Storage revised 4/17/24 states: Medications and biologicals are stored safely, securely and properly following manufacturer's recommendations or those of the supplier. In accordance with State and Federal laws, the facility will store all drugs and biologicals in locked compartments under proper temperatures and other appropriate environmental controls to preserve their integrity. Once any medication or biological package is opened, the facility should follow manufacturer/supplier guidelines with respect to expiration dates of opened medications. Once any multi-dose packaged medication or biological is opened nursing will mark multi-dose products (e.g. (for example) .insulin ) with the date opened and follow manufacturer/supplier guidelines with respect to expiration dates. All Scheduled medications and other drugs subject to abuse are stored in a separate, permanently affixed area and are under double lock. On 2/10/25 at approximately 10:59 AM inspection of the Dogwood Medication Room revealed: - the refrigerator container one vial of Tubersol (tuberculin purified protein derivative) 5 tuberculin units/0.1 ml (milliliter) 10 tests/package by Sanofi, opened and approximately 1/2 full and not dated as to opened date. The Tubersol was stored in the manufacturer's box which bore a pharmacy label which stated Date of First use______Discard 30 days after first use. The Sanofi package insert, dated October, 2021 stated: A vial of TUBERSOL which has been entered and in use for 30 days should be discarded - the open metal shelving unit contained a locked, but not permanently affixed Control E-Kit 16. This E-kit contained these controlled substances: alprazolam 0.25 mg (milligram) x 3, Clonazepam 0.5 mg x 3, Hydrocodone/Acetaminophen 5 mg/325 mg x 3, Hydrocodone/Acetaminophen 10 mg/325 mg x 3, Lorazepam 0.5 mg x 3, Morphine Sulfate 20 mg/ml 15 ml x 1, Oxycodone 5 mg x 3. Oxycodone 10 mg x 3 and Tramadol 50 mg x 3. -one opened bottle of Urinalysis Reagent Strips by Medline, Lot 98122100008 with expiration date of 12/28/24. On 2/10/25 at approximately 11:09 AM during an interview, Registered Nurse (RN)1 confirmed that the vial of Tubersol was opened and in-use, that the Control E- Kit 16 was not fastened to the shelf where it was stored and that the Urinalysis Reagent Strips had expired. On 2/10/25 at approximately 11:22 AM, inspection of the Dogwood Medication Cart #1 revealed multiple insulin syringes (Toujeo, Lispro Kwik, Lantus Solostar, Novolog Flex) which were in-use and had been opened and not dated as to opened date or were unopened and stored in the medication cart. These insulin syringes bore pharmacy label which stated Discard 28 days after opening and store unopened pen in the refrigerator. On 2/10/25 at approximately 11:39 AM during an interview, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)1 inspected and confirmed that multiple insulin syringes had been opened and/or unopened with the opened insulin syringes not been having dated when opened and that the unopened insulin syringes should have, according to pharmacy labelling, been stored in the refrigerator. On 2/10/25 at approximately 11:36 AM inspection of the [NAME] Medication Cart #1 revealed multiple insulin syringes (Basalgar Kwikpen, Lispro Kwik, Lantus Solostar, Novolog Flex) which were opened, in-use and not dated as to opened date or were unopened and stored in the medication cart. These insulin syringes bore \a pharmacy label which stated Discard 28 days after opening and store unopened pen in the refrigerator. On 02/10/25 at 11:48 AM, during an interview, LPN2 inspected and confirmed that multiple insulin syringes had been opened and/or unopened with the opened insulin syringes not been having dated when opened and that the unopened insulin syringes should have, according to pharmacy labelling, been stored in the refrigerator. On 2/10/25 at approximately 11:53 AM, inspection of the [NAME] medication room revealed: -an empty, unsecured to refrigerator shelf and locked controlled substance tackle box inside the locked refrigerator. -one opened bottle of Urinalysis Reagent Strips by Medline, Lot 98122100008 with expiration date of 12/28/24. On 2/10/25 at approximately 12:04 PM, LPN1 confirmed that the controlled substance tackle box was empty and was not affixed to refrigerator shelf and that the Urinalysis Reagent Strip had expired. On 2/10/25 at approximately 12:36 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) inquired and was informed of the findings. She confirmed that insulin should have been dated and/or stored correctly, that expired medications should be discarded and stated controlled substance e-kit was not attached to the shelf, but was unaware of a regulation requiring it to be attached.
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 review of the facility policy, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure foods stored in the main walk in refrigerator and dry storage were labeled, dated and not expired. T...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on review of the facility policy, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure foods stored in the main walk in refrigerator and dry storage were labeled, dated and not expired. This failure could potentially affect all 85 residents in this facility, who consumed food from the kitchen. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Food Safety in Receiving and Storage with a complete revision date of 06/20/2023 states, Check expiration dates and use by dates to assure the dates are within acceptable parameters. Store foods at least 6 inches off the floor .Refrigerated, ready to eat Time/Temperature Control for Safety Foods are properly covered, labeled, dated with a use by date . During an observation on 02/09/25 at 10:41 AM, the following food items were observed in the walk in refrigerator and freezer and verified by the Cook; 1 can of beef base open and dated 01/31/2025. 1 plastic bag of chicken nuggets that was open, not sealed or dated. 1 plastic bag of french fries, open and not dated. During an observation of the dry storage on 02/09/2025 at 10:55 AM, the following food items were observed and verified by the Cook; Approximately 18 cases of food not put away, on the floor, several were open and cans were on the floor directly without pallet. An open bottle of vanilla open, not dated, with the lid missing. Italian crushed seasoning, cinnamon rosemary and nutmeg all open, not dated. A large salt bin open, with the lid inside the salt. An interview with the [NAME] on 02/09/2025 at approximately 11:10 AM revealed, :The lid on the containers are not supposed to be in the salt. She confirmed all open foods are to be labeled and dated with open date and expiration date. She also said, There was a delivery on Friday, the food should have been put away. An interview on 02/10/2025 at 8:30 AM with the Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) confirmed, When we get a delivery, they need to put up the groceries, get them off the floor. Place end dates on cans, spices are tagged with a yellow sticker, and we rotate stock. Once pulled, they zip lock with a sticker, name of product, date open. Once open we have 3 days to use, then discard. Those would be refrigerated items. You have to have the date open. An interview on 02/11/2025 at 2:10 PM with the Administrator revealed, When the food is delivered, it should be put away by the next shift. To be stored, they need to be 6 inches off the floor. Food items that are in the refrigerator and the freezer need to be dated upon opening them. Also, all food should be labeled when it is delivered. The lids for the storage should not be in the food product.
Apr 2024 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

Comprehensive Assessments (Tag F0636)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the facility policy, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to complete an annual Minimum Data Se...

Read full inspector narrative →
**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 complete an annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) for 1 of 3 residents (R)1, reviewed. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, MDS Primary Assessment, revised 2023, revealed, Complete at a minimum, three querterly reviews and one comprehensive assessment every 12 months (366 day) period. Review of R1's medical record revealed he was admitted on [DATE] with diagnosis including Parkinsons Disease, Hypertension and a new diagnosis of Fracture Left Femur Neck. His Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) of 2, indicating severe cognitive loss. Review of the last MDS dated [DATE] revealed it was a quarterly assessment. Additional review of the MDS' revealed there were 2 previous MDS quarterly (Q) assessments dated 09/11/23, 06/12/23 and an annual assessment with a date of 03/12/23. On 04/09/2024 at 12:13 PM, an interview with the Director of Nurses (DON) revealed, I believe we complete them quarterly and an annual. We do 3 quarterlys and then an annual. I have a calendar in my office. She reviewed her MDS calendar and stated R1 was due 03/12/24. If it is not in the computer, it did not get done. She confirmed the 4 PPS assessments did not include a quarterly MDS combined into any of the assessments. On 04/09/24 at 12:20 PM, an interview with the MDS Nurse revealed, We complete assessments quarterly, followed by an annual assessment. It looks like I missed R1's annual MDS in March 2024. He had 3 quarterly assessments and his last annual MDS dated [DATE]. She reviewed his MDS' and Perspective Payment Plan (PPS) assessments and stated, I didn't combine the quarterly into any of those assessments.
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 the facility policy, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to develop/implement a Comprehensive ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**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 develop/implement a Comprehensive care plan for 2 of 3 resident (R)2 and R3, reviewed. Findings include: Review of the facility policy revised 2023, and titled Care Plan Process, Person Centered Care revealed, thru on-going assessment, the facility will initiate person centered care plans when the residents clinical status or change of condition indicates the need . Review of R2's medical record revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including but not limited to; acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, hypertension and left elbow and pelvis fracture. Review of an unspecified Minimum Data Set (MDS) revealed R2 has a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12, indicating intact cognition. Review of R2's medical record revealed he had a fall in the hallway on 02/22/24 and the hospital confirmed two new fractures, left elbow and pelvis. Review of R2's care plan revealed there was not a care plan to indicate R2 suffered two new fractures or pain associated with having new fractures. He was placed on bedrest until 03/07/24, when his orthopedic physician discontinued bedrest. An interview with R2 on 04/09/24 at 9:30 AM revealed, I had a fall and went down sideways. I hurt my leg and my arm. Observation of R2 on 04/09/24 at 9:30 AM revealed R2 was wearing a splint to his left elbow area. An interview on 04/09/24 at 12:20 PM with the Director of Nurses (DON) revealed, The fractures and pain should have been care planned. Review of R3's medical record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including but not limited to diabetes, anxiety, and heart failure. Review of an unspecified MDS revealed R3 has a BIMS score of 3, indicating severe cognitive impairment. Review of R3's care plan dated 02/07/24 revealed her Advanced Care Planning code status as a Full Code. Review of the South Carolina Emergency Medical Services Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) dated 02/15/24 revealed it was signed by her physician and Responsible Party. Review of her Physician's orders dated 03/11/24 for code status, DNR. An interview on 04/09/24 at 11:28 AM with the Social Services Director revealed, I educate and confirm a DNR/Full Code. I will schedule a meet and greet. I explain in detail what occurs in both situations to ensure the resident and responsible party understand. I will then get the appropriate paper work. The DNR form is initiated by myself or the nurses. Our nurse practitioner can sign or the physician. I also add the DNR to the care plan, for all advance directive. She confirmed she did not update the care plan.
Oct 2021 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0840 (Tag F0840)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, policy review and staff interview, the facility failed to provide documentation of a written agreement o...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, policy review and staff interview, the facility failed to provide documentation of a written agreement or contract with the company providing hemodialysis services for one (1) resident (Resident #12) reviewed for dialysis. Findings include: Review of the facility policy, Vendor Agreements Policy, revised 2/2015, documented, In order to ensure consistency in the services that your residents receive, and to protect the interests of your healthcare facility, the following procedures for entering into vendor agreements are recommended. Please be advised that the FAS Legal Department is available to review all agreements before signature. The following individuals are your points of contact for assistance with vendor agreements: Review of the clinical record revealed Resident #12 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of end stage renal disease (ESRD) with dialysis. The resident's most recent Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated , 7/2/21, revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) was completed and coded the resident as 12, indicating mildly impaired cognition with activities of daily living. The MDS also coded the resident to be receiving dialysis. Review of the care plan dated 4/2/21 with a long-term goal of 1/2/22, documented, Resident has dialysis every T, TH, Saturday at [NAME] Hall Dialysis located at 2060 [NAME] Hall Blouvard .Pick up time is 9:45 a.m., for an 11:00 a.m., chair time. Review of the Physician's Orders, dated 9/8/21 through 10/8/21, revealed a recurring order for dialysis on Tuesdays-Thursdays-Saturdays (T/TH/Sat) with a 9:45 a.m. pickup. Interview on 10/8/21 at 09:18 a.m. with the Administrator revealed the facility did not have a contract with Fresenius, which manages [NAME] Hall Dialysis. S/he stated Resident #12 was admitted from a sister facility and they faxed over their contract with Fresenius Kidney Care- [NAME] Hall. The Administrator stated they are currently working on a contract, but at this time, they don't have one. It is in their legal department at this time.
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), 2 harm violation(s), $29,188 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 10 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $29,188 in fines. Higher than 94% of South Carolina facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
  • • Grade F (18/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 18/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Oakbrook Center's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns OAKBROOK HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER 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 Oakbrook Center Staffed?

CMS rates OAKBROOK HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 60%, which is 14 percentage points above the South Carolina average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 56%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Oakbrook Center?

State health inspectors documented 10 deficiencies at OAKBROOK HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER during 2021 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 2 that caused actual resident harm, and 7 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 Oakbrook Center?

OAKBROOK HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by FUNDAMENTAL HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 88 certified beds and approximately 78 residents (about 89% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in SUMMERVILLE, South Carolina.

How Does Oakbrook Center Compare to Other South Carolina Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in South Carolina, OAKBROOK HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (60%) 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 Oakbrook Center?

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 Oakbrook Center Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, OAKBROOK HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER 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 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 Oakbrook Center Stick Around?

Staff turnover at OAKBROOK HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER is high. At 60%, the facility is 14 percentage points above the South Carolina average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 56%. RNs handle complex medical decisions and coordinate care — frequent RN changes can directly impact care quality. 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 Oakbrook Center Ever Fined?

OAKBROOK HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER has been fined $29,188 across 3 penalty actions. This is below the South Carolina average of $33,371. 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 Oakbrook Center on Any Federal Watch List?

OAKBROOK HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER is not on any federal watch list. The most significant is the Special Focus Facility (SFF) program, which identifies the bottom 1% of nursing homes nationally based on persistent, serious quality problems. Not being on this list means the facility has avoided the pattern of deficiencies that triggers enhanced federal oversight. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review the facility's inspection history directly.