Below average — CMS composite of the measures below.
The next survey window likely opens around February 2027
Estimate from public CMS data, current as of July 2026. Survey timing is at the state agency's discretion.
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Presbyterian Home Of Sc - Foothills during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
Arbitration Agreement Lacked Clear Neutral Venue: The facility failed to ensure its arbitration agreement clearly identified a neutral venue convenient to both parties. The admission agreement referenced arbitration under the FAA and SC Uniform Arbitration Act, but did not further clarify the SC Code of Laws for the signee. The form also listed arbitration as occurring in the county where the community is located, while Exhibit C stated disputes would be resolved in [NAME], SC. The CM said disputes would be handled at the company office, and the ED acknowledged the document contained conflicting venue language.
Failure to inspect and maintain bed frames and side rails per MIFU: facility manuals called for routine PM of bed frames, wiring, actuators, casters, fasteners, and secure rail latching, and the side rail policy required assessment of mattress-to-rail spacing to reduce entrapment risk. Surveyors observed multiple beds with bilateral upper rails raised, including one bed with an approx. 8- to 9-inch gap at the head and a 1- to 2-inch gap at the foot. The FSD stated there had been no bed inspections in the past 12 months, and the DON stated the facility did not have a policy on bed inspections.
Failure to Document Alternatives Before Use of Bed Rails: The facility failed to document attempted alternatives before using bilateral side rails for four residents. One resident’s Side Rail Evaluation stated rails were not indicated, while three others were documented as using rails to promote bed mobility. The residents were cognitively aware or intact, but none recalled being told about the risks and benefits of the rails, and the EMR lacked documented risk/benefit advisements or consent. The DON stated the facility had always had side rails upon admission and had not attempted alternatives.
A resident’s discharge MDS incorrectly listed the discharge status as Home/Community even though the resident was transferred to the hospital and did not return to the facility. The resident had been admitted for short-term rehab after fractures, and the MDSC confirmed the discharge location was documented in error.
A resident with acute respiratory failure with hypoxia had physician orders for oxygen at 3 LPM, later changed to 2 LPM, but was repeatedly observed on a concentrator set at 4.5 LPM. The care plan still referenced the older oxygen setting, and staff interviews showed an RN confirmed the ordered flow rate while an LPN believed oxygen could be titrated without an order; the DON stated oxygen orders were to be followed as written.
Arbitration Agreement Not Clearly Explained: A resident with a BIMS score of 13 and the resident’s family member signed an arbitration agreement, but the family member said no explanation was given and they did not understand what they signed or that they were giving up the right to sue. The CM said the agreement was only read as written and not clarified, while the ED said staff would go over the admission and arbitration paperwork and ensure understanding.
A resident with multiple medical conditions reported feeling 'manhandled' by a staff member, but the incident was not reported immediately as required by the facility's policy. The Administrator and DON, who were out for training, were informed the following day, resulting in a late report. The delay in reporting was acknowledged as a failure to follow the facility's immediate reporting policy.
The facility failed to timely complete and submit two out of three resident MDS assessments. The MDS Nurse admitted to missing the assessments, which were only completed and submitted after a report highlighted the issue. The DON acknowledged the importance of timely submissions but noted they are not an MDS nurse.
Arbitration Agreement Lacked Clear Neutral Venue
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that its arbitration agreement provided a neutral venue that was convenient to both parties and clearly documented the selection of the arbitrator and venue for residents who signed the agreement. Review of the admission agreement dated August 2024 showed a notice under Section 15-48-10 of the South Carolina Code of Laws stating that the agreement was subject to arbitration, and another section stating that if the Federal Arbitration Act did not apply, the agreement would be enforceable under the South Carolina Uniform Arbitration Act. The agreement did not include additional clarification of the South Carolina Code of Laws for the signee to review. The admission agreement also stated that arbitration would be conducted in the county where the community is located, while Exhibit C stated that legal disputes, controversies, demands, or claims would be resolved exclusively by binding arbitration to be conducted in [NAME], South Carolina. During interviews, the Case Manager stated disputes would be conducted in [NAME], South Carolina at the company office. The Executive Director stated the admission agreement had been updated at the end of 2024, confirmed that arbitration could occur anywhere, and acknowledged that the document showed both [NAME], South Carolina and the specific county as the location for arbitration, stating the form would have to be revised.
Failure to Inspect and Maintain Bed Frames and Rails
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure bed frames, electrical components, and bed rails, if present, were inspected and maintained according to manufacturer instructions for the 19 current residents in the facility. The report cites facility-provided manuals for Med [NAME] and Joerns UltraCare XT beds, which directed routine preventive maintenance, including inspection of bed frames for cracks, tears, bending, loose or missing fasteners, electrical enclosures, wiring, actuators, casters, and verification that side rails latch securely and bed controls operate correctly. The facility policy on side rails also stated that the space between the mattress and side rails should be assessed to reduce the risk for entrapment. Observations showed multiple beds with bilateral upper bed rails in the up position. R22’s bed was observed with bilateral upper bed rails up, R24’s bed was observed with bilateral upper bed rails up, and R41’s bed was observed with bilateral upper bed rails up. R40’s bed was observed with bilateral upper bed rails up and an approximate 8-inch gap from the mattress to the head board and an approximate 2-inch gap from the foot of the mattress to the foot board. On a later observation, the Executive Director measured the gap at the head of R40’s bed at 9 inches, and the gap at the foot of the bed was approximately 1 inch. During interview, the Facilities Services Director stated there had been no inspections on the beds in the past 12 months and noted that a foam insert had been placed in the bed gap for R40. During a later interview, the Director of Nursing stated the facility did not have a policy on bed inspections. The report also referenced FDA guidance on bed entrapment zones and dimensional limits for potential entrapment areas.
Failure to Document Alternatives Before Use of Bed Rails
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure alternatives were attempted before using bed rails for 4 of 4 residents reviewed for bed rails. The facility policy titled Proper Use of Side Rails stated that less restrictive interventions should be incorporated in care planning, that documentation should show whether less restrictive approaches were unsuccessful before considering side rails, and that the risks and benefits of side rail use should be considered for each resident, with consent obtained from the resident or legal representative after presenting the potential benefits and risks. Resident R22 was admitted with diagnoses including artificial hip joint, muscle weakness, and periprosthetic fracture of the left hip. Her MDS showed a BIMS score of 14 out of 15. During observation, she had bilateral assist bars on the bed and stated the facility was good about telling her how to use them, but she did not remember anyone telling her about entrapment. Her Side Rail Evaluation stated that side rails were not indicated at that time, but the assessment did not document any attempted alternatives, and the EMR did not show any risk/benefit advisement. Resident R24 was admitted with osteoarthritis, muscle weakness, osteoporosis with current pathological fracture, and a humeral fracture, and had a BIMS score of 13 out of 15. R24’s bed had bilateral assist bars, and she stated the facility had not advised her of the risks and benefits of the rails. Her Side Rail assessment stated that side rails were indicated and served as an enabler to promote independence in bed mobility, but it did not document any attempted alternatives. Similar findings were noted for R40, who had osteoarthritis, orthostatic hypertension, and muscle weakness, and for R41, who had polyosteoarthritis, right shoulder pain, muscle weakness, and a history of falling. Both had bilateral upper side rails, both stated they used them, and neither recalled any review of risks and benefits. Their Side Rail assessments also did not document attempted alternatives, and the DON stated the facility had always had side rails upon admission, had not attempted alternatives, and had no documented risk/benefit or consent.
Incorrect MDS Discharge Location Documented
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure the accuracy of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for one resident, R32, by incorrectly documenting the discharge location on the discharge assessment. Facility policy titled, MDS 3.0 Completion, stated that residents are assessed using a comprehensive assessment process to identify care needs and develop an interdisciplinary care plan, and that the discharge assessment is completed using the discharge date as the ARD within 14 days of discharge. R32 was admitted with diagnoses including fracture of the lower end of the left radius and multiple fractures of the pelvis without disruption of the pelvic ring, and was admitted for short-term rehab following a hospital stay for a pubic fracture. The record showed that on 01/29/26, R32 had complaints of dizziness, the physician was notified, the resident was in atrial fibrillation, and the resident was transferred to the hospital. The discharge return not anticipated MDS with an ARD of 01/29/26 recorded the discharge status as Home/Community. During interview, the MDS Coordinator stated that R32 went to the hospital and did not return to the facility, and confirmed that the discharge MDS had mistakenly documented that the resident had gone home when they had not.
Oxygen Delivered Above Ordered Flow Rate
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that one resident with a history of acute respiratory failure with hypoxia received oxygen as ordered by the physician. The resident had a physician order for oxygen at 3 LPM via nasal cannula every day and night shift for hypoxia, which was later changed to 2 LPM every day and night shift. However, during multiple observations, the resident was seen in bed using oxygen from the room concentrator, and the concentrator was set at 4.5 LPM each time. The resident’s care plan identified altered respiratory status and difficulty breathing related to acute respiratory failure and congestive heart failure, and it still referenced oxygen settings at 3 LPM rather than the updated physician order. During interviews, a CNA stated only nurses adjusted the LPM on an oxygen concentrator, and an RN confirmed the resident should have been receiving 2 LPM and lowered the concentrator to that setting. An LPN stated she believed the oxygen could be titrated up to 4 LPM as needed, but review of the physician orders showed there had not been a titrated oxygen order. The DON stated residents were not provided orders to titrate oxygen and that physician orders were to be followed as written.
Arbitration Agreement Not Clearly Explained
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that one of three reviewed residents, Resident 24, who signed an arbitration agreement, was provided an explanation of the binding agreement in a form and manner that the resident or representative understood. Review of the electronic medical record showed that Resident 24 and family member 1 signed and initialed the facility arbitration agreement on 02/04/26. Resident 24’s MDS with an ARD of 02/10/26 showed a BIMS score of 13 out of 15, indicating no cognitive impairment. During interviews, Resident 24 stated that family member 1 signed the arbitration agreement upon admission. The case manager stated that admission paperwork was given to the resident and/or representative to complete, and that if questions arose, the arbitration agreement would be read to them, but the case manager confirmed they only read the agreement as written and did not clarify it. Family member 1 stated that paperwork was received without an explanation of what was being signed, that they were not aware they did not have to sign the arbitration agreement, and that they did not understand they were giving up the right to sue. The executive director stated that if the resident or representative did not understand the admission or arbitration agreement, they could reach out, and confirmed the case manager went over the information with new admissions and would inform them they did not have to sign it and would ensure they understood it.
Failure to Timely Report Allegation of Abuse
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to timely report an allegation of abuse involving a resident, identified as R76, who was admitted with multiple medical conditions including fractured ribs, atrial fibrillation, pleural effusion, congestive heart failure, and hypertension. R76's cognitive status was assessed as having no cognitive impairment. During a care plan meeting, the resident's daughter mentioned that R76 felt 'manhandled' by a staff member and was afraid to stay another night. This incident was not reported immediately as required by the facility's policy. The Administrator and Director of Nurses (DON), who are the designated Abuse Coordinators, were not informed of the incident until the day after it was reported by the resident's daughter. The Administrator stated that if she had been informed on the day of the incident, she would have reported it immediately. The DON confirmed that both she and the Administrator were not present on the day of the incident due to training, and acknowledged that the report was submitted late. The delay in reporting the incident was recognized as a failure to adhere to the facility's policy of immediate reporting of suspected abuse.
Failure to Timely Submit MDS Assessments
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to complete and submit two out of three resident Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments in a timely manner. According to the facility's policy, every resident should be assessed using the MDS according to the guidelines in the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) manual. The MDS 3.0 Missing OBRA Assessment Report indicated that three resident assessments were not submitted to CMS. The MDS 3.0 Nursing Home Validation Report later confirmed that these assessments were submitted only after the Missing OBRA Assessment Report was provided to the Administrator. An interview with the MDS Nurse revealed that one assessment was completed and set for submission, while two assessments were not completed at all until the morning of the report. The MDS Nurse admitted to missing the assessments and stated that they follow the RAI, which allows 14 days to close the admission assessment. The Director of Nursing (DON) acknowledged the importance of not missing or skipping an MDS but noted that they are not an MDS nurse.
What surveyors are citing around you — mapped
All 10 risk areas, ranked with evidence
Repeat citations, what's rising near you, and quality measures — ranked so department heads know exactly where to look first.
Illustrative
What surveyors actually found near you
We read the 55 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 5 immediate-jeopardy cases — and tell you exactly what happened, in plain English, matched to your record.
Resident with a documented fall history left unattended on the patio; found on the ground with a hip fracture.
Walk-in cooler logs missing for 12 days; expired supplements in the medication room fridge.
Illustrative
A prioritized, do-first checklist
Every risk area becomes concrete audit steps drawn from real citations at facilities like yours — run them this week, before your window opens.
Illustrative
Risk indicators are statistical estimates from public CMS data — not predictions, findings, or compliance advice.
Nursing homes near Easley
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Powdersville Post-acute | 0.1 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| Fleetwood Post Acute | 3.5 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| West Village Post Acute | 6.4 mi | ★★★★★ | 7 | 0 |
| Piedmont Post-acute | 7.8 mi | ★★★★★ | 7 | 0 |
| Magnolia Manor - Greenville | 7.9 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Presbyterian Home Of Sc - Foothills.
100% money-back within 48 hours.
Trusted data, never guesswork. Every citation, penalty, rating and Plan of Correction on this page is sourced from public CMS records (latest release July 2026) and official state health department websites.