Home / South Carolina / Sumter
880 Carolina Avenue, Sumter, SC 29150 · Sumter County · (803) 775-5394
176 certified beds, about 167 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1977
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 425107 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on March 10, 2026, inspectors cited 9 health deficiencies (the South Carolina average is 3.7, the national average 9.2).
Of 31 health citations since October 2022, 3 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 4 fines totaling $29,135 in the last three years; the largest was $8,783, and the latest is dated March 20, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 2.94 hours per resident per day, against 3.84 across South Carolina and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.27 of those hours.
44.2% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (South Carolina average 45.9%).
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 31 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure food was stored off the floor, failed to label, date, and cover stored food, and failed to discard food with expired use by or best by dates in two of two facility kitchens. These failures had the potential to create an environment for food-borne illnesses which could affect 165 residents who consumed food prepared from the facility's two kitchens.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to complete an assessment of the building to determine where Legionella and other opportunistic waterborne pathogens can grow and spread. Additionally, there was no diagram of the water maintenance as it flows through the facility. This had the potential to affect 168 of 168 residents who resided at the facility. These failures had the potential to allow for the growth of waterborne pathogens to be unnoticed and placed residents at risk for the spread of infections.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure one of 20 supplemental residents was assessed for self-administration of medications Resident (R) 177. R177 had seizure medications at her bedside; however, she had not been assessed for or ordered by her physician to be able to self-administer her medications. This failure placed the resident at an increased risk of seizure activity if the medications were not administered as ordered by the physician.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure one of five residents Resident (R)18 reviewed for unnecessary medications out of a total sample of 35 had adequate indication for the use of an antipsychotic medication. R18 was ordered Seroquel (Quetiapine), an antipsychotic medication for schizophrenia, without documented evidence of the diagnosis. This failure placed the resident at risk of receiving unnecessary medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the facility policy, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment accurately reflected a facility fall for one of three residents reviewed for falls Resident (R)150 out of a total sample of 35. This failure had the potential to lead to lack of care plan interventions to prevent falls.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to ensure the comprehensive care plan was developed to accurately reflect the indication of the resident's use of an antipsychotic medication for one of five sampled residents Resident (R)18 reviewed for unnecessary medications out of a total sample of 35. This failure placed the resident at risk of staff not meeting the resident's care needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure one of 35 sampled residents Resident (R)6 care plan was revised to reflect the resident's end of life wishes. R6's wishes was to be a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR); however the resident's care plan documented the resident wanted to receive life saving measures of cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in the event her heart stopped or she stopped breathing. This failure placed R6 at risk to receive CPR against her wishes for a natural death, potentially causing serious injury from compressions or psychosocial harm related to her preference not being honored.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to implement care to prevent pressure ulcer development for one of four residents reviewed for pressure ulcers Resident (R)6 out of 35 sampled residents. R6's interventions for the prevention of pressure ulcers were not being implemented. This failure placed R6 at risk for development of pressure ulcers.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record reviews, interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to honor known food preferences for one resident Resident (R)155 of four residents reviewed for food out of 35 sampled residents. This failure had the potential to cause R155's nutritional needs to go unmet.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, record review and interview, the facility failed to protect Resident (R)1 from being physically restrained by Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA)1. Specifically, CNA1 grabbed both of R1's hands, held them crossed against R1's upper chest during incontinence care, for 1 of 3 residents reviewed. On 03/20/25 at 2:00 PM the Administrator and the Director of Nursing were notified that the failure to protect a resident from being physically restrained constituted IJ at F604. On 03/20/25 at 2:00 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 03/02/25. The IJ was related to 483.12 Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation. On 03/20/25 at 7:20 PM, the facility provided an acceptable IJ Removal Plan. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide appropriate supervision for Resident (R)78, resulting in R78 successfully eloping from the facility. On 10/09/24 at 11:28 AM, the survey team provided the Administrator with a copy of the CMS Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) Template, informing the facility IJ existed as of 09/26/24. The IJ was related to 42 CFR 483.25 - Free of Accidents Hazards/Supervision/Devices. On 10/10/24 at approximately 1:40 PM, the facility provided an acceptable IJ Removal Plan. The survey team validated the facility's corrective actions and determined the facility put forth good faith attempts to address the non-compliance. The IJ is considered at Past Non-Compliance with a correction date of 09/30/24. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure 3 of 3 clothes dryers in the East Building did not contain an excessive amount of lint. The lint was located above the lint baskets and onto the wiring.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, record review, and interview, the facility failed to provide services and interventions to prevent significant weight loss for 3 of 4 resident's reviewed for nutrition, Resident (R)3, R 17, and R78. Findings Include: Review of an undated facility policy titled, Weight Monitoring, revealed, . The facility will ensure that all residents maintain acceptable parameters of nutritional status . Further review of the Compliance Guidelines section, revealed, 1. The facility will utilize a systemic approach to optimize a resident's nutritional status 2. A comprehensive nutritional assessment will be completed upon admission on residents ., 3. Information gathered from the nutritional assessment and current dietary standards of practice are used to develop an individualized care plan ., 4. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on the facility policy, record review and interview, the facility failed to provide the required documents to notify Resident (R)63 and R125 regarding medicare eligibility and coverage for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for advance beneficiary notices.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that Resident (R)18 who needed respiratory care was provided with such care that was consistent with professional standards of practice for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for oxygen therapy.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that all drugs and biologicals used in the facility were labeled in accordance to professional standards including expiration dates for 3 of 3 Medication Storage Rooms, 1 out of 4 Medication Carts , and 1 out of 3 Treatment Carts.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to properly clean a glucometer machine.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to properly supervise 1 of 2 residents to prevent a fall, resulting in injury. Specifically, Resident (R)3 wandered into a staff break room and tripped and fell over a hole in the floor, resulting in R3 suffering a closed head injury and pain. This failure constituted actual harm.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, interview, observation, and record review, the facility failed to protect 7 of 19 residents from misappropriation of medications. Specifically, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)2 diverted medications from Residents (R)5, R6, R13, R14, R15, R16, and R17 during the months of August and September 2023.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to maintain one (main building kitchen) of two kitchens in sanitary condition to prevent potential contamination of food that could result in food borne illness for residents who received meals from the dietary department. Specifically, the facility: - failed to ensure stainless-steel service carts, food preparation (prep) tables, the inside of the microwave, the kitchen heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) vents, the ice machine, and other kitchen equipment/surfaces were free of rust, dust, and/or debris. - failed to ensure the kitchen floor was maintained in good repair. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure staff wore gloves while handing a resident's food during meal tray delivery and set-up on 1 (300 Hall) of 8 halls. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program for 3 of 3 residents (R)89, R28, and R108) interviewed and 1 of 2 kitchens observed to eradicate roaches and maintain the facility free of pests. This failure had the potential to cause a diminished quality of life for the residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to maintain the dignity for 2 (Resident (R)11 and R68) of 3 residents reviewed for dignity. Specifically, staff allowed R11 to dine on soiled linens while wearing a soiled brief and dine with dirty hands and fingernails. The facility also failed to provide a privacy cover for R68's indwelling urinary catheter collection bag.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observations, and staff interviews, the facility failed to assess for the use of a lap belt restraint for 1 Resident (R)91 of 1 resident reviewed for restraints.
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy review, record review, observation, and interviews, the facility failed to revise a care plan to include a behavioral problem for 1 Resident (R)11, of 28 reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and document review, the facility failed to investigate and identify the root cause of a fall for 1 (Resident #91) of 1 resident reviewed for accidents. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure an assessment of Resident #91 was completed and documented after the fall.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to determine the medical justification for the use of an indwelling urinary catheter and failed to secure an indwelling urinary catheter with a leg strap for 1 (Resident #68) of 1 resident reviewed with a urinary catheter.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to maintain a medication error rate of 5% or less. During medication administration observation, four nurses were observed administering medications to six residents for a total of 26 opportunities with two errors, which yielded a medication error rate of 7.69%.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the facility policy titled, Medication Reordering, observation, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure Resident (R)1 received an ordered dose of a Prenatal Vitamin Plus Low Iron on 12/21/22 as ordered by the physician for 1 of 5 residents observed during Medication Administration. Findings Include: Review of the facility policy titled, Medication Reordering, states, It is the policy of this facility to accurately and safely provide or obtain pharmaceutical services including the provision of routine and emergency medications and biological's in a timely manner to meet the needs of each resident. The Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: #1 states, The facility will utilize a systemic approach to provide or obtain routine and emergency medications and biological's in order to meet the needs of each resident. #2. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, the facility failed to follow-up on Resident #106's request to be evaluated for dentures. This affected 1 (Resident #106) of 3 residents reviewed for dental services.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure staff followed infection control practices related to hand hygiene and wound care supplies during wound treatment for 1 Resident(R)106, of 1 resident observed receiving wound care. Specifically, observations of wound care for R106 revealed staff failed to follow hand washing protocols between glove changes when changing a wound dressing, failed to set up wound care supplies on a clean surface, and failed to ensure contaminated supplies were not returned to a treatment cart after use.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, document review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident received a quarterly statement related to a personal funds account for 1 Resident (R)106 of 2 residents reviewed for personal funds.
6 fire safety citations on file: 1 on March 10, 2026, 2 on October 11, 2024, 3 on October 20, 2022.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| March 20, 2025 | Fine | $4,433 |
| October 11, 2024 | Fine | $8,018 |
| October 11, 2024 | Fine | $8,783 |
| September 29, 2023 | Fine | $7,901 |
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) | 2.94 | 3.84 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.27 | 0.63 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.54 | 3.33 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.69 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.98 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 44.2% | 45.9% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 50.0% | 42.1% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.53 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 3.10 on weekdays and 2.54 on weekends, 18% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 5.2% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.21 in April to June 2025 to 2.94 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 | 2.94 | 0.27 | 3.10 | 2.54 | 5.2% | 0 of 90 | 167 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.06 | 0.28 | 3.18 | 2.74 | 4.0% | 0 of 92 | 155 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.09 | 0.29 | 3.25 | 2.68 | 1.8% | 0 of 92 | 151 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.21 | 0.25 | 3.40 | 2.73 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 150 |
| 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.
| 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 | 7.7 | 11.9 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.2 | 0.6 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.2 | 1.3 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 3.2 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.3 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 14.3 | 12.7 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.0 | 5.1 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 7.1 | 15.3 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 32.4 | 24.3 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 16.4 | 13.9 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.1 | 2.0 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.8 | 1.8 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Sumter East Health & Rehabilitation Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it worse than the national rate (34.5% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
34.5% this home
Worse 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. 82 eligible stays.
11.7% 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. 110 eligible stays.
6.3% 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. 75 eligible stays.
34.6% 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. 81 residents counted.
0.0% 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. 134 residents counted.
3.7% 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. 134 residents counted.
83.3% 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. 48 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: SUMTER EAST FACILITY LLC.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scsnf Investment Group LLC | Direct ownership interest | Organization | 11/08/2022 | |
| Bhgsc Holdings LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 99% | 11/08/2022 |
| Carestrong LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 11/08/2022 | |
| Michael Allen Bokor Revocable Living Trust Agreement Dated May29, 2008 | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 11/08/2022 | |
| Greenwald, Michael | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 11/08/2022 | |
| Bokor, Michael | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 11/08/2022 | |
| Bokor, Michael | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 11/08/2022 | |
| Bokor, Michael | Corporate officer | Individual | 11/01/2022 | |
| Bokor, Michael | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 11/08/2022 | |
| Hatton, Bryan | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 03/04/2024 | |
| Maung, Peter | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 07/17/2023 | |
| Bokor, Michael | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 11/08/2022 | |
| Hatton, Bryan | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 03/04/2024 | |
| Maung, Peter | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 07/17/2023 |
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.