300 Agape Drive, West Columbia, SC 29169 (opens Google Maps) · Lexington County · (803) 739-5282· 98 certified beds · avg 84 residents/day · certified since Mar 14, 2003 · Medicare and Medicaid certified
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: THE ENSIGN GROUP (342 facilities, chain avg rating 3.2★)
New to these records? How to read an inspection report →
Health inspection rating: ★★★☆☆3/5 · CMS overall rating: 3/5 · how star ratings work →
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.
▲ Immediate jeopardy, isolated · Dec 16, 2024 · F-0880
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.
Why it matters: Weak infection control lets illnesses like flu, COVID-19, and drug-resistant infections spread quickly among vulnerable residents.
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: Jan 15, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Showing the latest 3 of 15 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint F-0600
The facility did not treat residents with dignity and respect, or did not honor their rights to make their own decisions and communicate freely. This is one of the most fundamental resident rights. · from a complaint F-0550
The facility did not make reasonable adjustments to fit each resident's individual needs and preferences — things like call buttons within reach, preferred wake-up times, or accessible room setups. · from a complaint F-0558
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Dec 4, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint · F-0600 |
| Apr 16, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not treat residents with dignity and respect, or did not honor their rights to make their own decisions and communicate freely. This is one of the most fundamental resident rights. · from a complaint · F-0550 |
| Apr 16, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not make reasonable adjustments to fit each resident's individual needs and preferences — things like call buttons within reach, preferred wake-up times, or accessible room setups. · from a complaint · F-0558 |
| Apr 16, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Apr 16, 2025 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0880 |
| Dec 16, 2024 | ▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, 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 |
| Dec 16, 2024 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · F-0812 |
| Dec 16, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584 |
| Dec 16, 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 |
| Dec 16, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · F-0692 |
| Dec 16, 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 |
| Dec 16, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock. · F-0761 |
| Feb 8, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Feb 8, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · F-0812 |
| Feb 8, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not update each resident's care assessment at least once every 3 months. These regular check-ins keep the resident's care plan matched to their current condition. · F-0638 |
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 3 | 0 | E |
| 2024 | 7 | 1 | J ▲ |
| 2025 | 5 | 0 | E |
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.
How to file a complaint about care →
2 fines totaling $12,043.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Dec 16, 2024 | Fine | $4,022 |
| Dec 16, 2024 | Fine | $8,021 |
What these staffing numbers mean →
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) | 3.73 | 4.08 | 3.95 | bottom 41% in South Carolina; bottom 48% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.50 | 0.67 | 0.69 | bottom 41% in South Carolina; bottom 38% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.15 | 3.55 | 3.50 | bottom 36% in South Carolina; bottom 39% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.29 | 0.41 | 0.48 | bottom 41% in South Carolina; bottom 29% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 50.0 | 45.9 | 45.8 | bottom 37% in South Carolina; bottom 38% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 12.5 | 42.1 | 42.9 | top 4% in South Carolina; top 6% 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 3.78, RN 0.51, weekend 3.18.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.78 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 3/5.
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.
Quality measures rating: 3/5 · long-stay residents: 4/5 · short-stay residents: 2/5
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Opus Post Acute Rehabilitation. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.
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.
Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price
How to read ownership records →
Ownership records as published by CMS on 2026-08-01. CMS records when an owner joined but not when they left. Listed here and no longer involved? Tell us →
For profit - Limited Liability company
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abbott, Swati | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2020 |
| Agape Health Holdings LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2022 |
| Agwunobi, John | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2023 |
| Blouin, Ann | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/28/2018 |
| Burnam, Soon | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/16/2015 |
| Burnam, Soon | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/16/2015 |
| Burton, Spencer | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/30/2015 |
| Christensen, Christopher | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2014 |
| Ensign Services INC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2016 |
| Keetch, Chad | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/17/2021 |
| Parkinson, Mark | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2024 |
| Peterson, Forrest | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2016 |
| Port, Barry | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/26/2018 |
| Rashid, Khurram | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/26/2019 |
| Rashid, Khurram | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/12/2025 |
| Rodriguez, Jose | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/22/2022 |
| Rodriguez, Jose | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/22/2022 |
| Shaw, Daren | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2012 |
| Smith, Barry | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2014 |
| Snapper, Suzanne | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/01/2009 |
Showing 20 of 23 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 3 are not displayed. The full list is in the CMS Ownership dataset.
CMS lists this facility under the chain The Ensign Group — 342 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.
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 341 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Millennium Post Acute Rehabilitation | 0.9 mi | West Columbia, SC | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| NHC Healthcare - Lexington | 1.3 mi | West Columbia, SC | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Presbyterian Home of South Carolina-Columbia | 2.5 mi | Lexington, SC | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Still Hopes Episcopal Retirement Community | 2.9 mi | West Columbia, SC | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| St Andrews Operator, LLC | 4.4 mi | Columbia, SC | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| C M Tucker Jr Nursing Care Center Fewell and Stone | 5.3 mi | Columbia, SC | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| C M Tucker Jr Nursing Care Center Roddey Pavilio | 5.3 mi | Columbia, SC | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Pruitthealth- Columbia | 6.0 mi | Columbia, SC | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Midlands Health & Rehabilitation Center | 6.0 mi | Columbia, SC | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Retreat at Wellmore of Lexington | 6.0 mi | Lexington, SC | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Forest Acres Post Acute | 6.2 mi | Columbia, SC | ★☆☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| White Oak Manor - Columbia | 7.1 mi | Columbia, SC | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
CMS records place this facility in Lexington, SC — 7 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
Listed by facility name — not a ranking. Homes already in the table above are not repeated here.
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 425379.
May we use Google Analytics cookies to measure visits and pages viewed? Optional — every feature works without them. Privacy details