Certified for both programmes. Certification means the facility can bill Medicaid — it does not mean a Medicaid-funded bed is free right now, so ask directly. Who pays for nursing home care →
Part of chain: FUNDAMENTAL HEALTHCARE (66 facilities, chain avg rating 2.4★)
3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected May 20, 2025
1
Serious findings on record
most recent Jun 14, 2024
$12,054
Fines, last 3 years
3.37
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)
Every record stays on this page.
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
The health inspection star above is graded on a curve within each state — a set share of each state's facilities gets each star level — so a facility can have few citations and still rate 2–3 stars if others in its state did even better. The overall rating combines that inspection score with staffing and quality measures from resident assessments and claims.
Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)
▲ Immediate jeopardy, isolated · Jun 14, 2024 · F-0624
The facility did not properly prepare residents for a safe transfer or discharge. Before a resident leaves, the facility must get them ready and make sure the move is safe and orderly.
Why it matters: An unprepared discharge can send a resident somewhere unsafe or without the care arrangements they need.
Severity (J): Immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety was cited. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.
Corrected: Jul 5, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 13 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · from a complaintF-0684
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaintF-0689
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · from a complaintF-0609
View all 13 inspection findingsShow only the latest 3 findings
CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed — that window is CMS's, not ours. Within it, every citation CMS publishes for this facility is listed here: none excluded.
Date
Severity
What the facility was cited for
Mar 4, 2025
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · from a complaint · F-0684
Mar 4, 2025
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint · F-0689
Nov 26, 2024
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · from a complaint · F-0609
Jun 14, 2024
▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, isolated
The facility did not properly prepare residents for a safe transfer or discharge. Before a resident leaves, the facility must get them ready and make sure the move is safe and orderly. · F-0624
Jun 14, 2024
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · F-0658
Jun 14, 2024
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not provide safe and appropriate respiratory care — such as oxygen, breathing treatments, or care for residents on breathing equipment — for residents who needed it. · F-0695
Jun 14, 2024
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail. · F-0698
Jun 14, 2024
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident. · F-0726
Jun 14, 2024
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · F-0880
Apr 9, 2024
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not immediately notify the resident, their doctor, and a family member when something significant happened — such as an injury, a decline in health, or a room change. Families and doctors are entitled to know right away. · from a complaint · F-0580
Aug 23, 2023
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint · F-0689
Mar 18, 2022
E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern
The facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · F-0880
Mar 18, 2022
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689
Inspection trend by year
Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2022
All citations:
2
Serious citations (G–L):
0
2023
All citations:
1
Serious citations (G–L):
0
2024
All citations:
8
Serious citations (G–L):
1
2025
All citations:
2
Serious citations (G–L):
0
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
Year
Citations
Serious (G–L)
Worst severity that year
2022
2
0
E
2023
1
0
D
2024
8
1
J ▲
2025
2
0
D
Counts reflect the current CMS public record (~3 inspection cycles plus complaint investigations); years with no surveys show no row. Inspection frequency varies, so compare severity as well as counts.
Every penalty CMS publishes for this facility in the 3-year window is listed —none excluded. The count and the dollar total come from two different CMS datasets and agree for this facility. Penalties older than the window are dropped by CMS before publication, not by us.
Date
Type
Amount / length
Jun 14, 2024
Fine
$12,054
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
Nurse time, in contextAdjusted hours per resident per day · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
This facilitySouth Carolina averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility:
3.37
South Carolina average:
4.08
U.S. average:
3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility:
0.40
South Carolina average:
0.67
U.S. average:
0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility:
2.86
South Carolina average:
3.55
U.S. average:
3.50
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
Measure
This facility
South Carolina avg
U.S. avg
Where it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
3.37
4.08
3.95
bottom 22% in South Carolina; bottom 30% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours
0.40
0.67
0.69
bottom 23% in South Carolina; bottom 22% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing
2.86
3.55
3.50
bottom 16% in South Carolina; bottom 24% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)
0.28
0.41
0.48
bottom 40% in South Carolina; bottom 29% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)
56.4
45.9
45.8
bottom 22% in South Carolina; bottom 22% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)
50.0
42.1
42.9
bottom 38% in South Carolina; bottom 39% in the U.S.
Hours are per resident per day for the most recent quarter of payroll data in this CMS release (2026-08-01) — the same quarter for every facility — case-mix adjusted by CMS so facilities caring for sicker residents can be compared fairly (same basis as the CMS staffing star). "Top X%" means better than most facilities: more staffing hours, or lower turnover. Raw (unadjusted) reported hours: total 3.13, RN 0.37, weekend 2.66.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.13 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 2/5.
Quality measures: assessments & claims
Note: CMS combines facility-reported resident assessments (MDS) with claims-based measures. These are different sources from on-site inspection findings. Read the measures alongside inspection and staffing records; a high QM rating does not establish that a home is safe.
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Magnolia Manor - Spartanburg. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.
Calculate a stay from a quote you receive
Use a written private-pay quote. This worksheet adds only the amounts you enter; it does not calculate Medicare, Medicaid or insurance benefits.
Formula: (room rate + daily extras) × days + one-time charges. A 30-day scenario is not a calendar-month quote. Refundable deposits, rate changes and charges you omit are not automatically included. Entries are not saved or sent to our server.
Before you compare prices
Request the room type, effective date and itemized daily rate in writing.
Ask about therapy, medicines, supplies, care-level charges, deposits, refunds and annual increases.
Confirm insurance or Medicaid eligibility and bed availability directly; certification alone does not guarantee either.
All 6 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
Other facilities in the same chain
CMS lists this facility under the chain Fundamental Healthcare — 66 facilities in the current records. Chain membership says who operates these homes. It says nothing about how any individual one of them was inspected; each has its own record.