White Oak Manor - York

111 South Congress Street, York, SC 29745 (803) 684-0035
For profit - Corporation 109 Beds WHITE OAK MANAGEMENT Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
80/100
#32 of 186 in SC
Last Inspection: May 2025

Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.

Overview

White Oak Manor in York, South Carolina, has a Trust Grade of B+, which means it is above average and generally recommended for families seeking care. It ranks #32 out of 186 facilities in the state, placing it in the top half, and #2 out of 8 in York County, indicating only one local option is better. The facility is improving, having reduced its issues from four in 2023 to none in 2025, which is a positive trend. Staffing receives an average rating of 3/5 stars, with a turnover rate of 41%, slightly below the state average of 46%, suggesting that staff tend to stay longer. There have been no fines reported, which is a good sign, but the facility has less RN coverage than 89% of other facilities in the state, raising some concerns about nursing oversight. However, there have been specific incidents that families should consider. In one serious case, a resident fell due to the facility not following their care plan, resulting in injuries like a skin tear and bruising. Additionally, there was a concern regarding proper procedures for notifying residents about Medicare coverage, which could impact their care decisions. Overall, while White Oak Manor has strengths in its ratings and trend, the reported incidents highlight areas needing attention to ensure resident safety.

Trust Score
B+
80/100
In South Carolina
#32/186
Top 17%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Better
4 → 0 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
41% turnover. Near South Carolina's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most South Carolina facilities.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 21 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for South Carolina. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
○ Average
7 deficiencies on record. Average for a facility this size. Mostly minor or procedural issues.
★★★★★
5.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★★★☆☆
3.0
Care Quality
★★★★★
5.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 4 issues
2025: 0 issues

The Good

  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (41%)

    7 points below South Carolina average of 48%

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 41%

Near South Carolina avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Chain: WHITE OAK MANAGEMENT

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 7 deficiencies on record

2 actual harm
Oct 2023 4 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0804 (Tag F0804)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure the meals served were palatable and prepared according to menu...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure the meals served were palatable and prepared according to menu specifications. Taste tests of the foods prepared for the puree diets revealed the items tasted similar to each other and appeared to be the same color, making it difficult to discern what the food item was. Six (6) of 15 residents interviewed, verbally expressed dissatisfaction with the meals. Findings include: Record review revealed Resident (R)70 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], for skilled therapy after a surgical procedure. During an interview on 10/3/23 at 2:16 p.m. Resident #70 said the food was not good and commented they did not like it. The resident stated they could not tell what type of meat she was served with the meal. During a follow up interview on 10/5/23 at 1:30 p.m., R70 said they were not aware the facility had an alternate menu that could be requested and commented the food was bland. R37 was admitted on [DATE], for skilled therapy after sustaining an injury from a fall. An interview was conducted on 10/4/23 at 8:07 a.m. with R37. When asked about the food served, the Resident commented you don't want to know. The resident went on to explain the food was bland. During a follow up interview on 10/5/23 at 2:00 p.m., R37 said they were not aware of any alternate menu that could be requested and reiterated they really did not like the food. On 10/5/23 at 1:00 p.m. during the resident council meeting, four (4) of the six (6) residents who attended the meeting, stated the food was bland. Review of the resident council meeting minutes, found that in March and May of 2023, during the monthly meetings, residents complained the food didn't have enough seasoning. The notes indicated that the Dietary Director responded to the residents and reassured them the issue would be corrected. On 10/5/23 during observation of the noon meal service between 11:00 a.m. and 12:30 p.m., the menu extension, that identified what food items were served to residents based on their diet, showed the regular diets were served a no added salt (NAS) diet. When asked what the NAS diet was, the Certified Dietary Manager explained that the staff did not use salt when cooking. On 10/5/23 at 12:30 p.m. the standardized recipe for the entrée served, meatloaf, was reviewed. The recipe included salt, pepper, and garlic. [NAME] #8 who prepared the meal, was asked about the spices identified in the recipe. Staff explained the salt, pepper, and half of the garlic were omitted from the recipe. On 10/05/23 at 12: 30 p.m. the CDM stated the facility served the NAS, diet to all residents on a regular diet. A taste test of the foods was completed with the CDM. The meatloaf tasted bland without the spices intended to compliment the food item identified in the recipe. In addition, the food prepared for the puree diet was tested for taste. The flavor of the entrée, meatloaf, was difficult to discern from the other items and the pureed corn tasted like mashed potatoes. The CDM was asked if thickener was used and explained that the staff used mashed potatoes in the puree foods. In addition, the color of the pureed food items served were similar, again making the different items difficult to identify what the food item was.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0805 (Tag F0805)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that food received was prepared in a form designed to meet individual needs. Failure to ensure the mechanical soft diet...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that food received was prepared in a form designed to meet individual needs. Failure to ensure the mechanical soft diets were served foods identified on the menu increased the risk a resident could choking or could not eat the foods served for five (5) of 19 sampled residents (#1, #5, #14, #68, #80) who had orders for the altered texture diet. Findings include: On 10/4/23, during the observation of meal service between 11:00 a.m. - 12:30 p.m., it was noted the mechanical soft diets were served whole kernel corn. Review of the diet extension, a menu that identified what diets received corresponding foods, indicated that mechanical soft diets should have been served creamed corn. The food item was not observed on tray line. On 10/4/23 at 11:30 a.m. after tray preparation had started, the Corporate Registered Dietician (RD) #7 was asked about the creamed corn. RD #7 directed staff to correct the error. Although some trays had left the dietary department, after heating the menu item, it was added to the service line. On 10/5/23 at approximately 9:15 a.m., RD #7 provided a list of residents who were on the mechanical soft diets, and explained the menu was corrected and the item was delivered to rooms if the tray left the kitchen prior to having the item available.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0582 (Tag F0582)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure Center for Medicare/Medicaid Services (CMS)-10055 Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notice of Non-coverage (SNFABN) was co...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure Center for Medicare/Medicaid Services (CMS)-10055 Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notice of Non-coverage (SNFABN) was completed correctly by the responsible parties for Resident #198 and Resident #52. This affected two (2) of three (3) residents reviewed for notification of changes in Medicare Part A coverage. The findings include: Review of an undated facility policy, titled, Advance Beneficiary Notice of Non-Coverage (ABN) CMS-R-131 revealed: The Business Office is to initiate, and deliver, the ABN CMS-R-131 form when a Medicare beneficiary is, or will be, receiving a service that Medicare is not likely to provide coverage in a specific case under Part B items or services. The ABN must be delivered far enough in advance that the resident or resident representative has time to consider the options and make an informed choice. In the section titled Procedure, the policy noted, The ABN form should be completed in its' entirety. The form must be delivered far enough in advance that the beneficiary or representative has time to consider the options and make an informed choice. The procedure also identified option boxes designated to be completed. Option boxes the beneficiary or resident representative is to personally select an option by making a mark in the chose checkbox one (1), two (2) or three (3). The procedure also noted: The resident or his or her representative must choose one (1) of the three (3) options. Under no circumstances can the notifier decide for the beneficiary which box to select. If the beneficiary cannot or will not make a choice, the notice should be annotated, for example, beneficiary refused to choose an option. Review of the medical record for Resident #198 revealed an admission date of 3/31/23 and a last covered day for Medicare Part A service of 5/11/23. Resident #198 remained in the facility after termination of Medicare Part A services but later discharged home on 6/1/23. Review of the SNFABN Form CMS-10055 for Resident #198, revealed the form was signed on 5/11/23 on the last day of coverage for Medicare Part A services. Further review of Form 10055 revealed an option to appeal to Medicare for continuation of services, to pay privately for services that were ending, or to end services was not selected. Review of the Progress Notes revealed no documentation the responsible party had been contacted regarding the incomplete section for options to appeal after it was received by the facility incomplete from the responsible party of Resident #198. Review of the medical record for Resident #52 revealed an admission date of 5/5/23 and a last covered day for Medicare Part A service of 5/14/23. Resident #52 remained in the facility after termination of Medicare Part A services. Review of the SNFABN Form CMS-10055 for Resident #52 revealed the form was signed on 5/14/23 on the last day of coverage for Medicare Part A services. Further review of Form 10055 revealed an option to appeal to Medicare for continuation, to pay privately for services that were ending or to end services was not selected. Review of the Progress Notes revealed no documentation the responsible party had been contacted regarding the incomplete section for options to appeal after it was received by the facility incomplete from the responsible party of Resident #52. On 10/3/23 at 3:10 p.m. during an interview with the Business Office Manager (BOM), he/she stated the forms were mailed to the responsible party three (3) days prior to the last covered day but could not guarantee the responsible party received them prior to the last covered day. He/She stated a phone call was made with an explanation of the letters, how to complete them and to sign and return them to the facility. The BOM stated that two (2) of the three (3) records reviewed were not marked to indicate: the option to appeal to Medicare for continuation of services, to pay privately for services that were ending, or to end services. The BOM stated she did not review them for completion when the forms were returned to the facility, and he/she was unaware that two (2) of Form 10055 were not completed correctly by the responsible party for Resident #198 and Resident #52. The BOM stated in the future, he/she would review the forms mailed back to the facility and ensure they were completed completely by the responsible party. On 10/5/23 at 1:30 p.m. during an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), he/she confirmed the documentation on Form 10055 for Resident #198 and Resident #52 was incomplete as the option to appeal to Medicare for continuation of services, to pay privately for services that were ending, or to end services was not selected.
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure food and prepared and distributed under sanitary conditions. The failure to ensure the ceiling and pipes above the stea...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure food and prepared and distributed under sanitary conditions. The failure to ensure the ceiling and pipes above the steam table, used for holding foods and plating foods served during meals had smooth and impervious surfaces increased the risk for contamination of food items held or assembled for residents receiving meals serviced by the kitchen. Findings include: The policy entitled Food Preparation and Services, dated 11/22, identified General Guidelines and included the following: Section 1 stated the identification of potential hazards in food preparation proc ess and adhering to critical control points can reduce the risk of contamination . Section 2 stated Cross contamination can occur when harmful substances, such as chemical or disease-causing organism are transferred to food . On 10/4/23, between 11:00 a.m. through 12:30 p.m., during observation of the noon meal service in the kitchen, it was noted that a pipe was suspended below the ceiling above the steam table holding and plate preparation area. The exposed pipe had yellowed colored paint that was curled and peeling of the surface of the metal. On 10/4/23 at approximately 12:30 p.m. during the observation when asked about the damage, Staff #6, the Certified Dietary Manager said they were not aware of any efforts to resolve the issue and explained they had only worked in the facility a short time. On 10/5/23 at 9:30 a.m., the Maintenance Director was asked about the damage observed. He/she explained the steam and heat from the cooking equipment damages the ceiling and stated he/she had recently repainted the area. On 10/6/23 at 10:15 a.m., during a joint observation of the area, the Maintenance Director reiterated that the ceiling above the area had recently been repainted. When asked about the peeling paint on the exposed pipe, the staff acknowledged the damage observed.
Oct 2021 3 deficiencies 2 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility policy, record review and interview, the facility failed to follow the care plan for one (1) resident (Residen...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility policy, record review and interview, the facility failed to follow the care plan for one (1) resident (Resident #57) reviewed for accidents/hazards. Care plan interventions included maintain environment free of clutter and safety hazards. Due to the failure of following the care plan, on 10/4/21, the resident was found on the floor by the bathroom in his/her room, which resulted in a skin tear to the lower spine and bruising to the right hand and forearm, resulting in harm to the resident. The resident's wheelchair was stored in the bathroom, which caused the resident to fall. The facility was aware the resident scored a 65 on the last quarterly fall risk assessment and had previous falls with fractures on 4/9/21 and 6/26/21. Findings include: Review of the policy titled Comprehensive Team Care Planning dated revision 5/18/2017 revealed: It is the policy of [NAME] Oak Management, Incorporated to provide care planning for all residents; to formulate individualized plans of care for each resident that will be an effective and useful approach, for providing quality care; and to help the resident meet his/her mental, emotional, social, and physical needs during his/her stay. This shall be a team approach for resolving the resident's problems or needs, with emphasis on normalization of daily life to the highest level of dignity and ability. The residents plan of care guides the necessary care and services based on the findings of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI). The services are implemented and updated on the care plan. Outcome evaluation and revisions for interventions/approaches are an ongoing process. Purpose: To look at a resident as a whole building on the individual resident characteristics, to develop an action plan to achieve resident objectives. Procedure: 1. Interdisciplinary Care Planning: A. The care plan team develops interventions appropriate for each resident based on the comprehensive assessment due at the completion of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) and the Care Area Assessment (CAA) summary protocol form. B. The planning for each resident must be interdisciplinary and involve at least one staff member from Social Services, Activities, Nursing, Dietary and other disciplines as indicated. C. Residents and/or their designated representatives are encouraged to participate in the development of their plan of care. Each resident will be invited to participate to the extent practicable or designated a representative to participate on his/her behalf. If a resident is unable due to mental or physical impairment, the resident's representative must be afforded the opportunity to represent the resident. An explanation must be included in the resident's medical record if the participation of the resident and his/her representative is determined not practicable for the development of the resident care plan. D. Any problems or needs that resident/representative addresses are incorporated in the Resident's Plan of Care (RPOC) by the involved discipline as appropriate. New condition existed upon admission to the facility. Any newly developed problems will have problem start date as date the problem is identified. E. The plan must specify goals and approaches to resolve the resident's identified problems or needs, accentuate resident strengths, acknowledge the resident's preferences and/or participation when appropriate, and be developed in coordination with the physician's orders. F. Similar problems should be combined when like goals and approaches are applicable. G. The resident/representative and team members sign the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) process review sheet indicating participation into developing the Plan of Care. Physician signs approval for current plan of care on the monthly physician orders and should also sign the RAI Process Review Sheet to indicate participation in the plan of care. A registered nurse must approve and sign all care plans, which may be indicated on the RAI Process Review Sheet. H. The care plan is consistently implemented by all personnel at all times of the day unless stated otherwise. I. Failure of the care plan team to acknowledge and pursue the problems identified by the resident's assessment will invalidate the entire process and not meet Federal Requirements. Review of the clinical record revealed Resident #57 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The resident was assessed on the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 8/31/2021, to have diagnoses of Displaced Fracture of Neck of Femur, Dementia with Behaviors, Bradycardia, Hyperlipidemia, Anemia, Headaches, Psoriasis, Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation, Muscle Weakness, Hallucinations, Urine Retention, Bell's Palsy, Presence of Right Artificial Hip Joint, Heart Failure, Chronic Diastolic Congestive Heart Failure, Thrombophilia, Poly-osteoarthritis, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, and Alzheimer's late onset. Resident #57 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of three (3) indicating severely impaired cognition. The MDS revealed Resident #57 did not participate in skilled therapies, but received restorative nursing programs during the assessment review period. Under Section G functional status, the resident was coded as requiring one (1) person extensive assist from staff for activities of daily living including bed mobility, transfers, toileting, and the use of mobility devices such as wheelchair (manual or electric) and coded to have impairment on one side of the lower extremity. Review of the Care Plan dated, 4/19/21, and revised 6/24/2019, 7/1/2021 ongoing, revealed Resident #57 at risk for falls related to weakness, the most recent quarterly fall risk assessment score 65 resident high risk. Implement high risk fall preventions interventions. Under the goals section, maintain environment free of clutter. Under the interventions section, keep walker and/or wheelchair next to bed, check bed alarm for proper functioning, prior to resident being assisted to bed at night (HS), maintain environment free of clutter and safety hazards, increase rounds to check on resident more frequently, chair alarm until self-release belt for safety of resident related to falls, fall mats to both sides of bed with alarms, staff to apply non-skid socks, be sure the resident's call light is within reach and encourage the resident to use it for assistance as needed. Review of the facility's Morse Fall Risk Assessment fall risk quarterly assessment score, dated 4/19/2021, revealed Resident #57 had a total fall risk score of 65, indicating the resident was at high risk of falls. Review of the facility's Occurrence Report dated 10/4/21 at 9:00 p.m. revealed, Resident #57 got up from bed unattended to go to the bathroom and was noted to be on the floor in the doorway of the bathroom, when s/he called for assistance. Resident had skin tear in middle of lower spine from the wheelchair that was parked in the bathroom. Bed alarm not sounding however was checked post fall and did sound upon applying/releasing pressure. Recommendations, staff to ensure proper functioning of bed alarm before the resident goes down for the night. Do not store wheelchair in bathroom. Review of the facility's Occurrence Report dated 4/9/21, Resident #57 had a fall resulting in a hip fracture. Review of the facility's Occurrence Report dated 6/1/21, Resident #57 had a fall, no injury. Review of the facility's Occurrence Report dated 6/26/21, Resident #57 had a fall, resulting in a compression fracture to the Lumbar vetebra area #1. Review of the facility's Alarm Sign off Report dated 10/1/21-10/6/21, for shifts 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m., and 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. revealed, the staff nurses indicated the alarm was working on each shift including 10/4/21 night of Resident#57's fall. The facility could not provide any in-services related to ensuring staff were educated on safe transfers or interventions to prevent falls; but provided in-services for safety in long term care setting dated 8/9/21 for all staff. Review of the facility's Head Trauma Protocol dated 10/4/21-10/6/21, revealed vital signs were completed every hour for four (4) hours, then every four hours (4) for 24 hours, then every shift for 48. An interview was conducted on 10/6/21 at 2:24 p.m. with Family of Resident #57 revealed, I am aware of the falls with injuries; this is tiresome. The facility can't prevent the falls, if s/he is going to get up, something needs to be done to prevent these injuries. S/he has alarms on the bed, wheelchair and anti-tippers as well, there have been times that I set off the bed alarm and they did not come or took them 20 minutes to answer the call light. S/he had falls at home and broke one hip and wrist, then broke the other hip here. The facility was aware of the fall risks upon admission. I feel they need to do more. An interview was conducted on 10/7/21 at 11:00 a.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON) and the Administrator while rounding on the unit, revealed the fall for Resident #57 just happened on Monday 10/4/21. We had not been able to fully investigate the incident. We expect staff, as much as possible, to ensure safety hazards are removed from the resident's room and the wheelchair to be out in the hallway or in the room when not in use. We may at times store the wheelchair in the bathroom but typically in the hallway. For the fall on 10/4/21, what we know is the wheelchair was in the resident's bathroom, the bed alarm did not sound, but the light was flashing when staff entered the room. Our expectation is that staff ensure the alarms are working and charted on the Medication Administration Record (MAR) each shift. An interview conducted on 10/7/21 at 11:08 a.m. with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #3 revealed, Resident #57 requires one person assist with ADLs, I recall the fall back in April of this year, I was walking down the hallway and noticed the resident on the floor by the entryway of the room. We have been in-serviced on trip hazards, but since the resident is non-mobile, we store the wheelchair in the hallway. An interview conducted on 10/7/21 at 11:16 a.m., with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #2 revealed, We are responsible for checking the alarms each shift and charting them in the MAR. Resident #57 has alarms on the wheelchair and bed. We do two (2) hour checks and frequently by walking past the room and looking in on the resident. S/he is one (1) to two (2) persons assist with ADLs. The wheelchair is stored in the room or the hallway when not in use. We ensure the room stays free of clutter. An interview conducted on 10/7/21 at 2:53 p.m. with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #4 revealed, Resident #57 yelled out and I went into the room. S/he was on the floor outside the bathroom door with his/her back up against the wheelchair. I asked what s/he was doing, and the resident stated I was going to the bathroom. CNA #4 further revealed, I did not hear the bed alarm go off. The resident has an alarm on the bed. The light was flashing but the alarm was not sounding. I called for the nurse because the resident stated s/he was hurting. The nurse assessed the resident who had a skin tear to the lower back. I turned the alarm off and back on again, it still did not sound, the nurse checked it also. I was informed to start the hourly vitals and was not sure who stored the wheelchair in the resident's bathroom. The Licensed Practical Nurse assigned to Resident #57 was unavailable for interview, however, per the statement made on the facility's Occurrence Report, dated 10/4/21 revealed, resident got up from bed un-attended, was noted on the floor in doorway of bathroom near back of wheelchair that had been placed in bathroom, evidently scraped the residents back. Fall causing skin tear. Recommendation, do not store wheelchair in bathroom.
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record reviews, interviews, and review of facility policy, it was determined for one (1) of 26 sampled res...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record reviews, interviews, and review of facility policy, it was determined for one (1) of 26 sampled residents (Resident #57) the facility failed to ensure that the resident's environment remained free of accidents and hazards as possible, and that the resident received adequate supervision as well as assistance to prevent accidents. The facility failed to ensure resident's safety by not ensuring the wheelchair was properly stored (located in resident's bathroom) by staff resulting in the resident falling in the doorway of bathroom and hitting his/her back on the wheelchair causing a skin tear to lower back and bruising to the right hand and forearm, resulting in harm to the resident. Resident #57 was assessed to require extensive assistance from staff for activities of daily living (ADLs) which included supervision and assistance to keep the resident safe and prevent injuries. Resident #57 was known to have a history of falls resulting in injuries that included fractures while in the facility. Findings Include: Review of the policy entitled. The Fall Management Program, no date revealed, PROGRAM: This policy applies to the staff at the healthcare center. The Fall Management Program has been developed to assist facilities in identifying strategies to minimize the risk of falls for residents and still maintain the highest practical level of functioning and mobility through comprehensive analysis of physical, mental, and psychosocial conditions and the development and implementation of an individualized plan of care. The Fall Risk Data Collection Tool (electronic user define assessment (UDA) determines program placement. 9. Fall Management Program: The following are recommended steps to carry out the Fall Management Program: Completion of Fall Risk Data Collection Tool (electronic UDA), during the admission/readmission process and quarterly. Medication review and clinical condition assessment as needed. Assessment of each resident for history of falls. Environment check of resident's immediate environment taking into consideration the listed Environmental Factors. Interim plan of care to be developed during the admission process for each resident. Newly admitted residents must be identified to all staff through the Daily Shift report, inter-department meetings, and/or the interdisciplinary team meetings. 2. Determination: The determination of the fall risk is necessary to identify those residents who are not only at risk, but also determine factors that place them at risk. Fall risk approaches can then be tailored and individualized. A resident is placed in a Fall Risk Program when one or more of the following apply: Fallen in last thirty days. Ambulatory with uncontained incontinence. Current risk symptoms for falls and not physically or cognitively able to request assistance. Non-ambulatory and attempts to get out of bed or chair without assistance. Interdisciplinary Team/Falls Committee recommends placement. Individual factors compounding risks. When initiating a Fall Management Program, current in-house residents are reviewed using the Fall Risk Data Collection Tool (electronic user defined assessment i.e., UDA) to determine program placement. An investigation will be completed after a fall, regardless if sustained injury, using the Fall Investigation Form. Following investigation, appropriate interventions will be implemented to reduce the risk of further falls. The Fall Risk Data Collection Tool (electronic UDA) is completed quarterly. Attention to environmental risk factors may reduce the incidence of falls. Attention to physical and cognitive status changes may also reduce incidence of falls. Attention to past life experiences also contribute to reducing the incident of falls. 3. Staff Education: Introduction: Falls represent a serious hazard for the older person, posing a threat to their quality of life. A fall is an unintentional change in position coming to rest on the ground, floor, or onto the next surface (e.g., onto a bed, chair, or bedside mat). The fall may be witnessed, reported by the resident or an observer or identified when a resident is found on the floor or ground. Falls include any fall no matter whether it occurred at home, while out in the community, in an acute hospital or a nursing home. Falls are not a result of overwhelming external force. (e.g., a resident pushes another resident.) Risk Factors: Internal Psychological External Internal Factors: Aging process-Diminished sensory perception. Psychological Factors: Denial of limitations/fall External Factors: Ground surfaces Lighting Stairways Bathrooms Furniture Equipment Other 4. Determination: Determining the fall risk is necessary to identify those residents who are not only at risk, but also to determine factors that place them at risk. Fall Risk Data Collection Tool (electronic UDA). 5. Fall Risk Data Collection Tool: History of falls past ninety (90) days. Internal Risk Factors. Perceptual. Medication. Appliances. 6. Interventions: Identify and treat internal factors. Identify and reduce environmental hazards. Assess gait and balance. Evaluate footwear. Review medications. Review daily routine. Prevent unsafe transfers and ambulation. Address social and psychological needs. 7. Objective: To attempt to provide an environment as free from accidental hazards as possible and provide adequate supervision and assistive devices to attempt to reduce the risk for occurrences. A fall from a nursing home resident may result in one or more of the following: Decreased body system functioning. Decreased mobility leading to development of pressure ulcer, contractures, muscle atrophy/weakness. Disability. Increased susceptibility to disease/infections. Injury. Psychological complications (fear of standing or walking). Reduction in Activities of Daily Living (ADLs). Death. 8. Definitions: For the purpose, of this program the following definitions will be taken into consideration: Accidents Hazards: Physical features in the nursing facility environment that can endanger a resident's safety. Environment: Refers to any area in the facility that is frequented by residents, including the residents' rooms, bathrooms, hallways, activity areas and therapy areas, an uncluttered environment is neat and well kept. Resident Rooms: Pathways from bed to bathroom are kept unobstructed. Cognitive Status: The residents ability to problem solve, decide, remember, be aware of and respond to safety hazards. 9. Occurrence Report: To document all occurrences to residents, employees, and visitors. Procedure: 1. Resident a.) Provide emergency care. b.) Chart occurrence on clinical record. c.) Enter on acute board. Key Points: Notify physician, family, and nursing supervisor. Include all pertinent observations. Obtain individual staff statements for current shift and at least two previous shifts for any/all occurrences not witnessed. Supervisor will investigate occurrence, complete report form, and submit to nursing office before the end of tour of duty. Submit completed Occurrence Report to nursing supervisor as soon as possible during tour of duty. Charge nurse or designee to escort the employee to the nearest hospital emergency room/and or designated physician as indicated. Give description of the circumstances surrounding the occurrence. Include findings by nursing personnel and descriptive statements of occurrence from resident, visitor, employee involved, witness, or individual who first reports occurrence. Document only the facts. Include all pertinent observations. Review of the clinical record revealed Resident #57 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The resident was assessed on the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 8/31/2021, to have diagnoses of Displaced Fracture of Neck of Femur, Dementia with Behaviors, Bradycardia, Hyperlipidemia, Anemia, Headaches, Psoriasis, Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation, Muscle Weakness, Hallucinations, Urine Retention, Bells Palsy, Presence of Right Artificial Hip Joint, Heart Failure, Chronic Diastolic Congestive Heart Failure, Thrombophilia, Poly-osteoarthritis, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, and Alzheimer's late onset. Resident #57 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of three (3) indicating severely impaired cognition. The MDS revealed Resident #57 did not participate in skilled therapies but received restorative nursing programs during the assessment review period. Under Section G functional status, the resident was coded as requiring one (1) person extensive assist from staff for activities of daily living including bed mobility, transfers, toileting, and the use of mobility devices such as wheelchair (manual or electric) and coded to have impairment on one (1) side of the lower extremity. Review of the Care Plan dated, 4/19/21, and revised 6/24/2019, 7/1/2021 ongoing, revealed Resident #57 at risk for falls related to weakness, the most recent quarterly fall risk assessment score 65, showing resident at high risk. Implement high risk fall prevention interventions. Under the goals section, maintain environment free of clutter. Under the interventions section, keep walker and/or wheelchair next to bed, check bed alarm for proper functioning, prior to resident being assisted to bed at night (HS), maintain environment free of clutter and safety hazards, increase rounds to check on resident more frequently, chair alarm until self-release belt for safety of resident related to falls, fall mats to both sides of bed with alarms, staff to apply non-skid socks, be sure the resident's call light is within reach and encourage the resident to use it for assistance as needed. Review of the facility's Morse Fall Risk Assessment fall risk quarterly assessment score, dated 4/19/2021, revealed Resident #57 had a total fall risk score of 65, indicating the resident was at high risk of falls. Review of the facility's Occurrence Report dated 10/4/21 at 9:00 p.m. revealed, Resident #57 got up from bed unattended to go to the bathroom and noted to be on the floor in the doorway of the bathroom, when s/he called for assistance. Resident has skin tear in middle of lower spine from wheelchair that was parked in the bathroom. Bed alarm not sounding however was checked post fall and did sound upon applying/releasing pressure. Recommendations, staff to ensure proper functioning of bed alarm before the resident goes down for the night. Do not store wheelchair in bathroom. Review of the facility's Occurrence Report dated 4/9/21, Resident #57 had a fall resulting in a hip fracture. Review of the facility's Occurrence Report dated 6/1/21, Resident #57 had a fall, no injury. Review of the facility's Occurrence Report dated 6/26/21, Resident #57 had a fall, resulting in a compression fracture to the Lumbar area #1. Review of the facility's Alarm Sign off Report dated 10/1/21-10/6/21, for shifts 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m., and 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. revealed, the staff nurses indicated the alarm was working on each shift including 10/4/21 night of Resident #57's fall. The facility could not provide any in-services related to ensuring staff were educated on safe transfers or interventions to prevent falls; but provided in-services for safety in long term care setting dated 8/9/21 for all staff. Review of the facility's Head Trauma Protocol dated 10/4/21-10/6/21, revealed vital signs were completed every hour for four (4) hours, then every four hours (4) for 24 hours, then every shift for 48. Observation of Resident #57 on 10/6/21 at 11:55 a.m., dressed well-groomed sitting up in wheelchair doorway of his/her room, seat belt alarm on and non-skid shoes. Fall mats to both sides of the bed. Observation of Resident #57 on 10/6/21 at 1:20 p.m., revealed resident was dressed and well- groomed sitting up in wheelchair at bedside table eating lunch. Dressed and well-groomed with non-skid shoes on and call light was within reach. Fall mats to both sides of the bed. Bed alarm working. Observation of Resident #57 on 10/6/21 at 2:24 p.m., revealed resident sitting up in wheelchair in the room, dressed and well-groomed had on non-skid shoes visiting with son; surveyor tested the alarm on bed, and it was working. Fall mats to both sides of the bed. Observation of Resident #57 on 10/7/21 at 10:43 a.m., revealed resident resting in bed, alarm on and call light in reach. Fall mats to both sides of the bed. Wheelchair not stored in bathroom. Bed alarm working. Observation of Resident #57 on 10/8/21 at 9:15 a.m., revealed resident sitting up in bed eating breakfast, fall mats to both sides of the bed, call light in reach and wheelchair noted in room and not the bathroom. An interview was conducted on 10/6/21 at 2:24 p.m. with Family of Resident #57 revealed, I am aware of the falls with injuries, this is tiresome the facility can't prevent the falls, if s/he is going to get up, something needs to be done to prevent these injuries. S/he has alarms on the bed, wheelchair and anti-tippers as well. There have been times that I set off the bed alarm and they did not come or took them 20 minutes to answer the call light. S/he had falls at home and broke one hip and wrist, then broke the other hip here. The facility was aware of the fall risks upon admission, I feel they need to do more. An interview was conducted on 10/7/21 at 11:00 a.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON) and the Administrator while rounding on the unit, revealed the fall on 10/4/21 for Resident #57 just happened on Monday. We had not been able to fully investigate the incident. We expect staff as much as possible to ensure safety hazards are removed from the resident's room and the wheelchair to be out in the hallway or in the room when not in use. We may at times store the wheelchair in the bathroom, but typically in the hallway. For the fall on 10/4/21, what we know is the wheelchair was in the resident's bathroom, the bed alarm did not sound, but the light was flashing when staff entered the room. Our expectation is that staff ensure the alarms are working and charted on the Medication Administration Record (MAR) each shift. An interview conducted on 10/7/21 at 11:08 a.m. with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #3 revealed, Resident #57 requires one person assist with ADLs. I recall the fall back in April of this year, I was walking down the hallway and noticed the resident on the floor by the entryway of the room. We have been in-serviced on trip hazards, but since the resident is non-mobile, we store the wheelchair in the hallway. An interview conducted on 10/7/21 at 11:16 a.m., with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #2 revealed, We are responsible for checking the alarms each shift and charting them in the MAR. Resident #57 has alarms on the wheelchair and bed, we do two (2) hour checks and frequently by walking past the room and looking in on the resident. S/he is one (1) to two (2) persons assist with ADLs. The wheelchair is stored in the room or the hallway when not in use, we ensure the room stays free of clutter. An interview conducted on 10/7/21 at 2:53 p.m. with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #4 which revealed, Resident #57 yelled out and I went into the room s/he was on the floor outside the bathroom door with back up against the wheelchair. I asked what s/he was doing, and the resident stated I was going to the bathroom. CNA #4 further revealed, I did not hear the bed alarm go off, the resident has an alarm on the bed, the light was flashing, but the alarm was not sounding. I called for the nurse because the resident stated s/he was hurting. The nurse assessed the resident who had a skin tear to the lower back. I turned the alarm off and back on again. It still did not sound. The nurse checked it also. I was informed to start the hourly vitals and not sure who stored the wheelchair in the resident's bathroom. The Licensed Practical Nurse assigned to Resident #57 was unavailable for interview, per the statement made on the facility's Occurrence Report, dated 10/4/21, which revealed the resident got up from bed unattended, was noted on the floor in the doorway of bathroom near the back of the wheelchair that had been placed in bathroom, which evidently scraped the resident's back. Fall causing skin tear. Recommendation, do not store wheelchair in bathroom.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure one (1) facility staff member serv...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure one (1) facility staff member serve residents meals utilizing proper hand hygiene. Residents affected were in the rooms #113 A, #113 B, and #118. Findings include: On 10/5/2021 at 12:19 p.m. lunch observation of Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #1 revealed s/he walk from a resident's room on the Oak Terrace hall. Observed CNA #1 approach the lunch tray cart and get a tray off the cart without sanitizing his/her hands. Observed CNA #1 walk down the hall to room [ROOM NUMBER] to assist one (1) resident in a private room with the lunch tray set up. CNA #1 was observed to move items around on resident's bedside table while assisting with the lunch tray set up. CNA #1 was observed to exit the resident's room and walk by five (5) hand sanitizer stations (one (1) hand sanitizer station was located near the lunch carts). Continued observation of CNA #1 revealed s/he did not sanitize his/her hands and got another lunch tray from the lunch cart. CNA #1 was observed to walk down the hall to room [ROOM NUMBER] and dropped a straw wrapped in paper on the floor. CNA #1 was observed to place room [ROOM NUMBER] A's tray on the bedside table and walk out of the room. CNA #1 was observed to then walk by three (3) hand sanitizer stations and not sanitize his/her hands. CNA #1 was observed to remove a third lunch tray from the lunch cart and bend down to pick up the straw that had been dropped on the floor. S/he was observed to carry the straw and tray into room [ROOM NUMBER] and assist resident in room [ROOM NUMBER] B with lunch set up. CNA #1 was observed to touch resident's blanket and assist resident with sitting up on the side of the bed to eat lunch. S/he was observed to open the straw that had been dropped on the floor for resident in room [ROOM NUMBER] B. S/he then sat on the side of the resident's bed (room [ROOM NUMBER] A) and assist with feeding the resident. On 10/5/2021 12:23 p.m., an observation of room [ROOM NUMBER]'s trash can revealed there was no straw in the trash. The trash can was empty. On 10/5/2021 at 1:01 p.m., an interview with CNA #1 revealed that s/he has been employed at the facility for two (2) years and receives hand hygiene education quarterly. S/he stated that s/he forgot to sanitize his/her hands and was supposed to sanitize/wash hands between each resident. CNA #1 confirmed picking the straw off the floor while carrying a lunch tray and placing the straw on the table. S/he stated that she placed the straw in the trash can. On 10/7/2021 at 10:48 a.m., an interview with Staff Development/Infection Control-Registered Nurse (RN) revealed s/he has been the staff coordinator for the facility for three (3) weeks. S/he stated that in-services will be provided as needed and every week for hand hygiene and donning and doffing Personal Protection Equipment (PPE). S/he stated that staff are expected to sanitize/wash hands before entering a resident's room and coming out of a resident room. S/he stated that if any items were to fall on the floor the staff can pick up the items, place in the trash or linen and sanitize/wash hands or leave the item on the floor for housekeeping to get. S/he stated that there was an education session given on hand hygiene on Tuesday, October 5, 2021. Review of the Hand Hygiene form undated revealed, Hand hygiene continues to be the primary means of preventing the transmission of infection. The following is a list of some situations that require hand hygiene: Before and after eating or handling food (hand washing with soap and water), before and after assisting a resident with meals. Review of the Hand Washing Technique policy revision date 5/8/07 revealed the alternate technique for hand hygiene objective: To prevent the spread of infection, procedure: 1. Apply a dime size dollop on palm of one hand and 2. Rub hands together covering all surfaces until hands are dry. Review of the Hand Washing checklist dated 2/5/2021 revealed CNA #1 completed a hand washing checklist. Review of CNA #1 online education tool revealed s/he completed Infection Prevention and Control for All Staff on 9/2/2021. Review of the Handwashing quiz dated 2/5/2021 revealed CNA #1 completed the handwashing quiz.
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

  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Grade B+ (80/100). Above average facility, better than most options in South Carolina.
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most South Carolina facilities.
  • • 41% turnover. Below South Carolina's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • 7 deficiencies on record, including 2 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
Bottom line: Generally positive indicators. Standard due diligence and a personal visit recommended.

About This Facility

What is White Oak Manor - York's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns White Oak Manor - York an overall rating of 5 out of 5 stars, which is considered much above average nationally. Within South Carolina, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.

How is White Oak Manor - York Staffed?

CMS rates White Oak Manor - York's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 41%, compared to the South Carolina average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at White Oak Manor - York?

State health inspectors documented 7 deficiencies at White Oak Manor - York during 2021 to 2023. These included: 2 that caused actual resident harm and 5 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates White Oak Manor - York?

White Oak Manor - York 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 WHITE OAK MANAGEMENT, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 109 certified beds and approximately 92 residents (about 84% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in York, South Carolina.

How Does White Oak Manor - York Compare to Other South Carolina Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in South Carolina, White Oak Manor - York's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 2.9, staff turnover (41%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (5 stars) is much above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting White Oak Manor - York?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?"

Is White Oak Manor - York Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, White Oak Manor - York has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 5-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in South Carolina. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.

Do Nurses at White Oak Manor - York Stick Around?

White Oak Manor - York has a staff turnover rate of 41%, 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 White Oak Manor - York Ever Fined?

White Oak Manor - York has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.

Is White Oak Manor - York on Any Federal Watch List?

White Oak Manor - York 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.