Deficiency Index

Presbyterian Home Of SC - Foothills

Easley, South Carolina · CCN 425403

12 surveys since 2011, 2 of them producing a finding at harm level or worse.

Data as of , released by CMS on October 8, 2026. Source: CMS Provider Data Catalog.

Citations on record
51
Surveys
12
Harm or worse
2
Immediate jeopardy
0
The record, 2011–2026
’11’15’20’25’26
No harm recordedHarm or worseNot surveyed
Harm or worse2

Findings where a surveyor recorded actual harm to a resident.

Beyond CMS’s monthly file9/12

Older surveys no longer in CMS’s monthly file or on Care Compare. They are shown here.

The facility

Certified beds
22
Ownership
Non profit - Corporation
Chain
PRESBYTERIAN COMMUNITIES OF SOUTH CAROLINA
County
Pickens
Medicare-certified since
2011

CMS ratings

Overall
2
Health inspection
2
Staffing
4
Quality measures
4

CMS’s own Five-Star ratings.

Compared with similar facilities

Not shown for this facility: too few citations in window (n=12, floor 20).

Last survey on record

Mar 5, 2026

249 days ago.

Counts surveys with at least one finding. A clean survey leaves no record here, so the real gap may be shorter.

Staffing

MeasureThis facilityPeer median
Nurse hours per resident day6.075.61
Registered-nurse hours per resident day1.32—
Annual nurse turnover63.6%42.6%

As reported by the facility to CMS, beside the peer-group median.

Enforcement

No fines, payment denials or special-focus designation on the current CMS record.

Severity of recent findings

Citations by CMS scope and severity. Rows are harm level, columns are how widespread the finding was.
SeverityIsolatedPatternWidespread
Immediate jeopardyJ—K—L—
Actual harmG—H—I—
No harm, potential for more than minimalD666.7%E111.1%F222.2%
No harm, potential for minimalA—B—C—
CMS’s current file: 9 of the 51 citations on record.

In the surveyor’s words

From the most serious findings on record at Presbyterian Home Of SC - Foothills, in the surveyor’s own words.

  • No harm, potential for more than minimal, widespreadF848Mar 5, 2026

    Based on document review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that the arbitration agreement signed by all facility residents, with a current census of 19 residents, provided for the selection of a venue that was convenient to both parties. Additional information documented in the admission Agreement revealed a stipulation related to the South Carolina Code of Laws that was not further clarified in this signed contract. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure that a neutral venue available to both parties was documented within the arbitration agreement and that potential Arbitration Agreement exempts existed within this form. […]

  • No harm, potential for more than minimal, widespreadF909Mar 5, 2026

    Based on observation, interview, facility policy review, review of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidelines and review of Manufacturer's Instructions for Use (MIFU), the facility failed to ensure bed frames, electrical components, and bed rails if present, were inspected and maintained by MIFU for the 19 current residents in the facility. This deficient practice has the potential for bed malfunction, contributing to possible resident injury.Findings include:Review of the facility provided Med [NAME] User Manual, page 13 Maintenance provided by the facility revealed: Maintenance and Service, Notice: Recommended to perform preventative maintenance every 12 months for best performance. 1. Inspect the frame for weld cracks or tears. 2. […]

  • No harm, potential for more than minimal, widespreadF812May 28, 2021

    Based on observation, record review, interviews and facility policy, the facility failed to store food in a closed manner, failed to label food containers when opened, failed to store dishes and utensils in a sanitary manner, failed to maintain an air gap on the ice machine, failed to maintain appropriate sanitization levels in the cleaning buckets and failed to serve food in a sanitary manner. The facility had one (1) main kitchen and a satellite kitchen that provided meals for the skilled unit. […]

  • No harm, potential for more than minimal, patternF700Mar 5, 2026

    Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure alternatives were attempted prior to the use of bed rails for 4 of 4 residents (Resident (R)22, R24, R40, and R41) reviewed for bed rails out of a total sample of 13. This failure had the potential to increase accidental entrapment or injury when an alternate assistive device may have been effective.Findings include:Review of the undated facility policy titled Proper Use of Side Rails revealed, .The purposes of these guidelines are to ensure the safe use of side rails as resident mobility aids and to prohibit the use of side rails as restraints unless necessary to treat a resident's medical symptoms. General Guidelines . 2. […]

  • No harm, potential for more than minimal, patternF803May 28, 2021

    Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to follow the scoop size when plating the resident's diet. Review of the facility provided Resident and Diet List revealed five residents received a mechanical soft ground diet. Findings include: Observation on 5/25/21 beginning at 12:00 p.m., of the plating of the noon meal in the Satellite kitchen, revealed staff served bowtie pasta and used a four (4) ounce ladle to serve a sauce over the pasta. Further observation revealed the fullness of the ladle varied. […]

Read 22 findings in full →The most serious and the most recent: 22 of 51 on record.

Every survey on record

FindingsAt actual harm or above

  • Mar 5, 2026Standard6 findings
  • Jan 16, 2025Standard and complaint2 findings
  • Apr 13, 2023Standard1 finding
  • May 28, 2021Standard2 findings
  • Apr 12, 2021Complaint1 finding
  • Jan 25, 2019Standard and complaint5 findings
  • Jan 11, 2018Standard2 findings
  • Feb 15, 2017Standard1 finding
Show the 4 earlier surveys
  • Mar 30, 2016Standard and complaint3 findings
  • Jun 12, 2013—4 findings
  • Aug 16, 2012—15 findings · 2 harm
  • Sep 27, 2011—9 findings

Surveys that found no deficiencies are not in CMS’s files and do not appear here.

Comparable facilities

The nearest facilities to this one in the same peer group, by weighted findings.

Deficiency Index is independent and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or approved by CMS, Medicare, or any government agency. About this data · Report a correction