Deficiency Index

Spartanburg Hospital for Restorative Care SNF

Spartanburg, South Carolina · CCN 425384

5 surveys since 2013, 4 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
7
Surveys
5
Harm or worse
4
Immediate jeopardy
1
The record, 2013–2025
’13’15’20’25
No harm recordedHarm or worseNot surveyed
Immediate jeopardy1

Findings at the most serious level CMS records.

Beyond CMS’s monthly file4/5

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

The facility

Certified beds
25
Ownership
Government - Federal
Chain
Independent
County
Spartanburg
Medicare-certified since
2006

CMS ratings

Overall
5
Health inspection
5
Staffing
5
Quality measures
5

CMS’s own Five-Star ratings.

Compared with similar facilities

Not shown for this facility: too few citations in window (n=2, floor 20).

Last survey on record

Nov 19, 2025

355 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 day6.135.61
Registered-nurse hours per resident day3.00—
Annual nurse turnover47.8%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 minimalD1100.0%E—F—
No harm, potential for minimalA—B—C—
CMS’s current file: 1 of the 7 citations on record.

In the surveyor’s words

From the most serious findings on record at Spartanburg Hospital for Restorative Care SNF, in the surveyor’s own words.

  • No harm, potential for more than minimal, isolatedF880Nov 19, 2025

    Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that the resident's food was served under sanitary conditions and that their environment was conducive for dining, related to Resident (R)7's lunch tray being placed beside a urinal containing urine during dining, for 1 of 3 residents reviewed during dining. Review of the State Operations Manual Appendix PP - Guidelines to Surveyors for Long Term Care Facilities, Rev. 232; Issued: 07-23-25, Environmental Factors: Appetite is often enhanced by the appealing aroma, flavor, form, and appearance of food. […]

  • No harm, potential for more than minimal, isolatedF578Jan 13, 2021

    Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that a resident's advance directive of Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) was signed by the resident or had two physical's signature for non decisional capacity. Resident #58 had an advance directive for DNR signed by someone else and there was no documentation of decisional capacity by two physicians. The findings included: The facility admitted Resident #58 on 1/08/2021 with [DIAGNOSES REDACTED]. A review of the paper medical record on 1/11/2021 at approximately 1:11 PM revealed no documentation under the advance directive tab. A review of the electronic medical record on 1/11/2021 at approximately 2:07 PM revealed Resident #58 was coded as a DNR for advance directive. […]

Read all 7 findings in full →

Every survey on record

FindingsAt actual harm or above

  • Nov 19, 2025Standard1 finding
  • Jan 13, 2021Standard1 finding
  • Mar 7, 2019Complaint3 findings · 3 harm
  • Apr 4, 2018Standard1 finding
  • Jul 16, 2013—1 finding · 1 harm

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