Home / South Carolina / Mount Pleasant
1049 Anna Knapp Boulevard, Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 · Charleston County · (843) 881-3210
176 certified beds, about 161 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1981
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 425146 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on June 30, 2026, inspectors cited 1 health deficiency (the South Carolina average is 3.7, the national average 9.2).
Of 35 health citations since January 2024, 4 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (4 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 5 fines totaling $97,992 in the last three years; the largest was $49,104, and the latest is dated June 30, 2026.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.05 hours per resident per day, against 3.84 across South Carolina and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.29 of those hours.
53.9% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (South Carolina average 45.9%).
CMS links it to PACS Group, an affiliated group of 275 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 35 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to protect 3 of 3 residents (Resident (R)2, R51 and R159) from physical abuse, out of a sample of 33 residents. Specifically, the facility enabled R68 to physically abuse R2, R51, and R159 by not properly supervising R68. On 06/29/26, the State Agency (SA) determined that the facility's non-compliance with one or more federal health, safety, and/or quality regulations has caused or was likely to cause serious injury, serious harm, serious impairment, or death. On 06/29/26 at 9:30 PM, the survey team provided the Administrator with a copy of the CMS Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) Template and informed the facility IJ existed as of 01/25/26. The IJ was related to 42 CFR 483.12 - Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation. On 06/30/26 at 1:06 PM, the facility provided an acceptable IJ Removal Plan. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 1 resident (Resident (R)116) reviewed for care plan participation from a sample of 33 residents was afforded the opportunity to participate in the development and implementation of her person-centered plan of care. The facility's failure to invite and include R116 in the care planning process limited her opportunity to be informed of and participate in decisions regarding her care.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide a timely notification to the provider or nurse practitioner (NP) of the delayed delivery of a medication for 1 of 1 resident (Resident (R)172) in the sample of 33 residents. Specifically, R172 missed two doses of intravenous (IV) medication and there was no evidence in the medical record the provider or NP was notified. This deficient practice had the potential to affect the resident's health and recovery from sepsis.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, and facility document review, the facility failed to maintain a safe and homelike environment, including but not limited to ensuring maintenance services were conducted as necessary to maintain a sanitary, orderly, and comfortable interior. Specifically, the bedroom walls were gauged and scraped and the bathroom door had scuff marks and was unable to open fully. This deficient practice affected eight resident (R)76, R141, R147, R17, R82, R35, R145 and R96) in the census of 151. The facility failed to provide a homelike environment and easy access in and out of resident rooms and bathrooms.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, document review and policy review, the facility failed to have menu spreadsheets and/or follow menu spreadsheets for portion sizes for three (Resident (R)51, R61 and R92) of three residents reviewed for menus and therapeutic diets for 81 residents reviewed for menus. This deficient practice could cause residents to choke on food and/or lose weight.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review the facility failed to follow the facility's policy and ensure signage for Enhanced Barrier Protection (EBP) was posted for residents who had a urinary catheter, gastrostomy tube (G-tube), dialysis, and/or open wounds for 13 of 34 residents (Resident (R) R113, R412, R16, R151, R126, R88, R119, R75, R38. R10, R22, R114, and R101) reviewed for EBP. As a result of this deficient practice the staff had the potential to spread infections from one resident to another.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, review of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendation pneumococcal vaccination for all adults 65 years or older, and facility policy review, the facility failed to offer pneumovax recommended updates for five of five residents (Residents (R)49, R39, R86, R53, and R83) reviewed for pneumonia vaccinations out of a total sample of 34 residents, the opportunity for the resident to be vaccinated in accordance with nationally recognized standards. This practice had the potential to increase the risk for these residents to contract pneumonia.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) manual, the facility failed to ensure a significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) was completed for one resident (Resident (R)87) of two sampled residents reviewed for hospice in a total sample of 34. The facility failed to complete the significant change assessment when R87 revoked hospice services due to an improvement in his condition. This failure placed residents at risk of unmet care needs and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) manual, the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set (MDS) was coded accurately for two (Residents (R)87 and R135) in a total sample of 34. The facility failed to accurately code a significant change assessment for prognosis of terminal illness for R87 and for mental status for R135. These failures placed the residents at risk of unmet care needs and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a baseline care plan was accurate and complete within 48 hours of admission to the facility for one of nine residents (Resident (R)412) reviewed for care plans in the sample of 34 residents. The deficient practice had the potential for the lack of care planning for the specific needs of the residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to implement a person-centered comprehensive plan of care with measurable goals for one of 34 sampled residents (R) 16) reviewed for care plans. The failure to implement the care plan intervention for pressure ulcers of a cushion to the resident's wheelchair placed the resident at risk of an ongoing decline in healing of the pressure ulcers.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Comprehensive Care Plan was revised/updated for one resident (Resident (R)87) in a total sample of 34 care plans reviewed. Specifically, the facility failed to update the care plan when R87 revoked hospice services, had the gastrostomy tube (G-tube-a tube placed into the abdomen for medications and nourishment) removed and had the enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) removed. This failure placed the resident at risk of unmet care needs and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to investigate the possible underlying issue for significant weight loss and assessed the resident before the use of a psychotropic drug for weight loss for one (Resident (R)51) of 10 sampled residents reviewed for nutritional status. This had the potential to cause further weight loss.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, resident record, and facility policy, the facility failed to ensure residents receiving dialysis treatments, staff were using Enhanced Barrier Protection (EBP) when providing direct resident care for two of three residents (Resident (R) 113 and R412) reviewed for dialysis care. The facility failed to ensure physician orders were in place for dialysis treatment and accurate interventions were documented in the care plan. The deficient practice has the potential for the residents to not receive dialysis care in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, record reviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure that one out of five residents (Resident (R) 145) out of a total sample of 33 residents reviewed for unnecessary medication use. Specifically, the facility failed to follow adequate monitoring of blood pressure parameters before the unnecessary administration of blood pressure medications, according to physician orders. This failure had the potential to increase the risk for serious adverse effects.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to maintain a medication error rate of less than 5% when two oral medications were not administered according to the physician's order for two (Residents (R)20 and R80) of seven residents observed during medication pass. This consisted of two medications errors in 30 opportunities for a 6.67% error rate.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, document review, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure narcotic counts were initialed by the on-coming nurse (7:00AM to 7:00PM) and the off-going nurse (7:00PM to 7:00AM) at the change of shift to ensure the narcotic count was accurate for eight of eight medications carts reviewed. This failure had the potential for drug diversion.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, resident record, and facility policy, the facility failed to ensure residents receiving dialysis treatments had accurate documentation of care provided for the dialysis site for two of three residents (Resident (R) 113 and R412) reviewed for dialysis care. The deficient practice has the potential for the residents to not receive dialysis care in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the previous three years of surveys, complaint investigations and any plans of corrections were made readily accessible to residents, families, or visitors. This failure placed all the residents, families, and visitors at risk of not being provided with information on the facility's quality of care.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, observation, and interview, the facility failed to protect residents private health information, for 3 of 8 residents. Specifically, a nurse did not secure the computer screen while administering medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to assess, supervise, and provide proper safety protocols for residents that smoke, for 2 of 6 residents (Resident (R)123 and R101) reviewed for accidents/hazards. On 04/16/24 at 5:17 PM, the Administrator was notified that the failure to conduct smoking assessments, ensure residents were adequately supervised during smoking, ensuring safety protocols, and providing a safe environment for residents that smoke constituted Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) at F689. On 04/16/24 at 5:17 PM, the survey team provided the Administrator with a copy of the Center of Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) IJ Template and informed the facility IJ existed as of 04/10/24 at 4:33 PM. The IJ was related to 42 CFR 483.25 - Quality of Care. On 04/17/24 the facility provided an acceptable IJ Removal Plan. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure 3 of 3 certified nursing assistants (CNA)s received annual performance reviews.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, interview, manufacturer labeling and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure that medications were properly stored in 5 of 8 medication carts, 4 of 4 treatment carts and 2 of 4 medication rooms.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure that kitchen staff wore beard/hair restraints while cooking, preparing, or assembling food. Furthermore, the facility failed to to properly store, label/date and discard expired foods for 1 of 1 kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to provide dignity to Resident (R)129 prior to entering her room, for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for dignity.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to notify Resident (R)273's representative of a room change for 1 of 1 resident reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to prevent a resident-to-resident altercation. Furthermore, the facility neglected to provide care for R58 for 3 of 5 residents reviewed for abuse/neglect.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and review of facility policy the facility failed to report a resident-to-resident altercation and an allegation of neglect to the state agency in a timely manner as required by federal regulation, for 3 of 5 residents reviewed for abuse/neglect.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to provide Resident (R)60 with Activities of Daily Living (ADL) care, for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for ADLs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, interviews, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to properly position the catheter bag for Residents (R)163, for 1 of 2 residents reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to assess and provide pain medication as prescribed to Resident (R)60 in a timely manner, for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for pain.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide Resident (R)3 with a dinner meal tray for 1 of 8 residents reviewed for food.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the facility policy, interviews and record review, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan related to Resident (R)1's usage of bedrails. On [DATE] at 3:25 PM, the State Agency (SA) determined that the facility's non-compliance with one or more federal health, safety, and/or quality regulations has caused or was likely to cause serious injury, serious harm, serious impairment, or death. On [DATE] at 3:25 PM, the survey team provided the Administrator with a copy of the CMS Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) Template and informed the facility IJ existed as of [DATE]. The IJ was related to 42 CFR 483.21 - Comprehensive Resident Centered Care Plan. On [DATE] at 6:32 PM, the facility provided an acceptable IJ Removal Plan. On [DATE] at 7:00 PM, the survey team validated the facility's corrective actions and removed the IJ. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure Resident (R)1 was properly assessed for the usage of bedrails to prevent entrapment, educated on the risks and benefits of bed rails with R1 and/or his Resident Representative, and to ensure consents were in place prior to the use of bedrails. On [DATE] at 3:23 PM, the State Agency (SA) determined that the facility's non-compliance with one or more federal health, safety, and/or quality regulations has caused or was likely to cause serious injury, serious harm, serious impairment, or death. On [DATE] at 3:27 PM, the survey team provided the Administrator with a copy of the CMS Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) Template and informed the facility IJ existed as of [DATE]. The IJ was related to 42 CFR 483.25: Quality of Care. On [DATE] at 6:38 PM, the facility provided an acceptable IJ Removal Plan. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the facility policy, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to report an incident involving death to the State Agency (SA) within two (2) hours.
4 fire safety citations on file: 2 on April 10, 2025, 2 on April 18, 2024.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| June 30, 2026 | Fine | $24,205 |
| April 10, 2025 | Fine | $7,882 |
| April 18, 2024 | Fine | $49,104 |
| January 5, 2024 | Fine | $3,801 |
| January 5, 2024 | Fine | $13,000 |
A payment denial means Medicare and Medicaid stopped paying for new admissions for that period.
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) | 3.05 | 3.84 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.29 | 0.63 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.70 | 3.33 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.73 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.03 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 53.9% | 45.9% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 66.7% | 42.1% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.68 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 3.19 on weekdays and 2.70 on weekends, 15% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 7.4% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.09 in April to June 2025 to 3.05 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 | 3.05 | 0.29 | 3.19 | 2.70 | 7.4% | 0 of 90 | 161 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.16 | 0.34 | 3.32 | 2.76 | 9.3% | 0 of 92 | 156 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.13 | 0.37 | 3.27 | 2.77 | 3.8% | 0 of 92 | 150 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.09 | 0.43 | 3.23 | 2.74 | 1.4% | 0 of 91 | 151 |
| 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 long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 9.3 | 11.9 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.6 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.0 | 1.3 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.8 | 3.2 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.2 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 10.8 | 12.7 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 7.4 | 5.1 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 10.7 | 15.3 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 20.5 | 24.3 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 11.1 | 13.9 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.7 | 2.0 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.4 | 1.8 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Sandpiper Post Acute's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (50.8% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
50.8% this home
No different from 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. 110 eligible stays.
9.8% 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. 136 eligible stays.
8.6% 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. 81 eligible stays.
37.5% 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. 72 residents counted.
0.8% 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. 119 residents counted.
4.0% 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. 119 residents counted.
89.3% 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. 28 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: MT. PLEASANT SNF, LLC. CMS links this home to PACS Group, a group of 275 nursing homes averaging 2.9 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Palmetto Master Tenant, LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 01/19/2021 |
| Outz, Charles | Contracted managing employee | Individual | 03/01/2022 | |
| Litchfield, Tanner | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 03/20/2024 | |
| Apt, Frederick | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/01/2024 | |
| Jergensen, Joshua | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/01/2024 | |
| Mitchell, John | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/01/2024 |
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.