Home / South Carolina / Easley
205 Bud Nalley Drive, Easley, SC 29642 · Pickens County · (864) 859-3367
22 certified beds, about 18 residents a day · Non profit - Corporation · Medicare since 2011
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 425403 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on March 5, 2026, inspectors cited 6 health deficiencies (the South Carolina average is 3.7, the national average 9.2).
None of its 9 health citations since April 2023 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy.
CMS lists no fines against this home in the last three years.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 6.07 hours per resident per day, against 3.84 across South Carolina and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 1.32 of those hours.
63.6% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (South Carolina average 45.9%).
CMS links it to Presbyterian Communities of South Carolina, an affiliated group of 5 nursing homes.
Federal rules call for a standard inspection at least every 15 months, plus a visit whenever a complaint is filed. Each mark below is one citation, colored by how serious inspectors rated it. How to read a citation.
Under each citation, the quoted text is the inspector's own summary from the federal statement of deficiencies (CMS form 2567), word for word apart from a privacy scrub; CMS removes residents' and staff names before it publishes the text. The full notes are on Medicare.gov.
CMS rates every citation by how much harm it caused (rows) and how many residents it touched (columns). The count in each box is this home's, across all 9 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased 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. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased 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.
Inspectors wroteBased 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.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure the accuracy of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for 1 resident (Resident (R) 32) of 13 residents in the sample reviewed for MDS accuracy. Specifically, R32's MDS failed to identify the correct discharge location at the end of the resident's stay. This failure created a potential for lack of identification of current problems and resident needs, leading to an incomplete or ineffective plan of care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 3 residents (Resident (R)35) reviewed for respiratory services, received oxygen as ordered by the physician. This failure placed the resident at risk of receiving insufficient oxygen to meet the assessed respiratory need.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that 1 of 3 residents (Resident (R)24) reviewed, that signed an arbitration agreement, were provided with an explanation of the binding agreement in a form and manner that they or their representative understood. The failures to ensure residents or their representatives were properly and clearly informed of the signed binding arbitration agreement could affect the ability for residents and families to be properly informed of the potential implication of the binding agreement on decisions and choices about important aspects of residents' health, safety, and welfare.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the facility policy, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to timely report an allegation of abuse for 1 of 1 residents (R)76, reviewed for abuse. Not reporting timely had the potential to cause further potential abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the facility policy, report review and interview, the facility failed to complete and submit 2 of 3 resident Minimum Data Sheet (MDS) assessments timely.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, record reviews, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to ensure a resident's end of life wishes and physician's orders were correctly documented throughout the medical record resulting in the potential that one resident's wishes (Resident (R) 122) out of a total sample of 13 residents would not be honored in the event of a life-threatening emergency.
CMS lists no fines or payment denials against this home in the last three years. The national average is 0.9 fines per home.
Hours of care per resident per day, from the payroll records every home sends CMS. Higher means more staff time with each resident.
| Measure | This home | South Carolina | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 6.07 | 3.84 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 1.32 | 0.63 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 4.82 | 3.33 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.99 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.76 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 63.6% | 45.9% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 62.5% | 42.1% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 4.40 hours a day for residents as sick as this home's (its case-mix figure). The staffing star compares the two.
Every nursing home sends CMS its staff hours for each day (the Payroll Based Journal). Here they are added up by quarter. The latest quarter is the one behind the figures above. In January to March 2026, nursing staff hours per resident were 6.56 on weekdays and 4.82 on weekends, 27% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 9.8% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 6.23 in April to June 2025 to 6.07 in January to March 2026.
| Quarter | All nursing staff | Registered nurses | Weekdays | Weekends | Contract staff share | Days with no RN hours | Residents a day |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan to Mar 2026 | 6.07 | 1.32 | 6.56 | 4.82 | 9.8% | 0 of 90 | 18 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 5.79 | 1.43 | 6.23 | 4.66 | 2.7% | 0 of 92 | 17 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 6.01 | 1.99 | 6.57 | 4.56 | 0.7% | 0 of 92 | 20 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 6.23 | 2.13 | 6.94 | 4.45 | 1.5% | 0 of 91 | 19 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| South Carolina, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.62 | 0.53 | 3.81 | 3.13 | 7.2% | 0.3% of days |
Hours per resident per day: staff hours in the quarter divided by resident days (the daily census CMS derives from resident assessments). Registered nurses include the director of nursing and RNs with administrative duties; aides include nurse aides in training and medication aides, as in CMS's own staffing measure. How these are calculated.
Staff pay reports
No staff pay figure for this home has passed review yet. A figure appears only after at least 5 reports from at least 3 different people, sent over at least 60 days, have passed review. If you work here, your report helps start one.
| Job | Median | Middle half | Employed |
|---|---|---|---|
| South Carolina, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $17.90 | $16.81 to $19.08 | 21,760 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $29.72 | $27.59 to $34.24 | 9,400 |
| Registered nurses | $39.60 | $37.17 to $46.75 | 49,750 |
| United States, nursing care facilities | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $20.67 | $17.91 to $22.55 | 534,270 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $33.86 | $30.05 to $37.40 | 188,210 |
| Registered nurses | $41.11 | $37.85 to $47.68 | 142,270 |
Hourly wages; the middle half runs from the 25th to the 75th percentile. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, May 2025. BLS has no separate estimate for medication aides. These are survey estimates for whole occupations, not figures for any one home.
The measures CMS uses for the quality star. Lower is better for every one of them.
| Measure | This home | South Carolina | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.1 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 22.6 | 24.3 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 11.4 | 13.9 | 12.0 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Presbyterian Home of Sc - Foothills's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it better than the national rate (61.1% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
61.1% this home
Better than the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · South Carolina: 53 better, 21 worse
Rate of successful return to home or community from a SNF (risk-standardized discharge to community rate). Higher is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 335 eligible stays.
9.3% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · South Carolina: 0 better, 5 worse
Rate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 346 eligible stays.
5.2% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 7.1% · South Carolina: 1 better, 3 worse
Percentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2023 to September 2024. 207 eligible stays.
73.5% this home
Median of homes: South Carolina57.6% · US 56.6%
Percentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 162 residents counted.
0.5% this home
Median of homes: South Carolina0.5% · US 0.0%
Percentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay. Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 202 residents counted.
7.4% this home
Median of homes: South Carolina2.1% · US 1.7%
Percentage of residents with pressure ulcers or pressure injuries that are new or worsened (adjusted rate). Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 202 residents counted.
100.0% this home
Median of homes: South Carolina98.3% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 166 residents counted.
Source: CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program - Provider Data, released 2026-09-30. Better, no different and worse are CMS's own comparisons with the national rate, after adjusting for how sick residents were. Medians of homes and the state counts are worked out by us from the same file.
Legal business name: PRESBYTERIAN COMMUNITIES OF SOUTH CAROLINA. CMS links this home to Presbyterian Communities of South Carolina, a group of 5 nursing homes averaging 3.8 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Presbyterian Communities of South Carolina | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 03/17/2008 | |
| Fant, Luther | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 06/01/2020 | |
| Melven, William | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 07/07/2019 | |
| Stamper, Amanda | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 03/05/2021 | |
| Fant, Luther | Corporate officer | Individual | 06/01/2020 | |
| Melven, William | Corporate officer | Individual | 07/07/2019 | |
| Stamper, Amanda | Corporate officer | Individual | 03/05/2021 |
As listed in the CMS ownership file, which names owners with a 5% or greater stake and the people and companies with operational or managerial control.
Chosen from this home's own inspection record.
These are the official offices in South Carolina. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.