755 Whitman Street SE, Orangeburg, SC 29115 (opens Google Maps) · Orangeburg County · (803) 534-7036· 88 certified beds · avg 80 residents/day · certified since Apr 15, 1979 · 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: PRUITTHEALTH (95 facilities, chain avg rating 2.9★)
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.
Showing the latest 3 of 22 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility did not enter each resident's assessment information into the required format and send it to the state within 7 days of completing the assessment, as the rules require. F-0640
The facility used bed rails without first trying safer alternatives, or without assessing the resident's safety risk, discussing the risks and benefits with the resident or family, getting consent, and installing the rails correctly. F-0700
The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. F-0804
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 |
|---|---|---|
| May 8, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not enter each resident's assessment information into the required format and send it to the state within 7 days of completing the assessment, as the rules require. · F-0640 |
| May 8, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility used bed rails without first trying safer alternatives, or without assessing the resident's safety risk, discussing the risks and benefits with the resident or family, getting consent, and installing the rails correctly. · F-0700 |
| Dec 13, 2023 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. · F-0804 |
| Dec 13, 2023 | 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 13, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Dec 13, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0558 |
| Dec 13, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide the help residents need with basic daily activities — like bathing, dressing, eating, and using the bathroom — for residents who cannot do these things on their own. · F-0677 |
| Dec 13, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide the care needed to maintain or improve residents' movement and flexibility — such as range-of-motion exercises — leading to avoidable decline. · F-0688 |
| Dec 13, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide appropriate care related to bladder and bowel needs — including care for residents who use catheters and steps to prevent urinary tract infections. · F-0690 |
| Oct 21, 2021 | 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 |
| Oct 21, 2021 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not have a registered nurse on duty at least 8 hours a day, or did not have a registered nurse serving full-time as director of nursing. · F-0727 |
| Oct 21, 2021 | 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 |
| Oct 21, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0550 |
| Oct 21, 2021 | 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 |
| Oct 21, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not give residents (and their representatives and the ombudsman, a state advocate for residents) proper advance notice before a transfer or discharge, including information about their right to appeal. · F-0623 |
| Oct 21, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not reassess a resident after a significant change in their condition, such as a sudden decline in health. A full new assessment is required when a resident's condition changes in a major way. · F-0637 |
| Oct 21, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility allowed residents to lose the ability to do daily activities — like bathing, dressing, and eating — when there was no medical reason for the decline. Good care helps residents keep the abilities they have. · F-0676 |
| Oct 21, 2021 | 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 |
| Oct 21, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility's medication error rate was 5 percent or higher — meaning too many doses were given incorrectly, such as the wrong drug, dose, or time. · F-0759 |
| Oct 21, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication. · F-0760 |
| Oct 21, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not have a working call system — the button or cord residents use to summon help — in each resident's bathroom and bathing area. · F-0919 |
| Oct 21, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. · F-0921 |
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (7 → 2).
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | 13 | 0 | F |
| 2023 | 7 | 0 | F |
| 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.
How to file a complaint about care →
1 fine totaling $3,728.
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 13, 2023 | Fine | $3,728 |
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) | 3.55 | 4.08 | 3.95 | bottom 32% in South Carolina; bottom 39% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.46 | 0.67 | 0.69 | bottom 33% in South Carolina; bottom 32% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 2.70 | 3.55 | 3.50 | bottom 6% in South Carolina; bottom 16% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.29 | 0.41 | 0.48 | bottom 42% in South Carolina; bottom 31% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 44.2 | 45.9 | 45.8 | top 45% in South Carolina; top 48% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 54.5 | 42.1 | 42.9 | bottom 27% in South Carolina; bottom 29% 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 3.58, RN 0.47, weekend 2.73.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.58 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 2/5.
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: 3/5 · short-stay residents: —/5
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Pruitthealth- Orangeburg. 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 - Corporation
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pruitt, Neil | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/11/2008 |
| Pruitt, Neil | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/11/2008 |
| Pruitt, Neil | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/11/2008 |
| Pruitthealth INC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/26/2008 |
| Rutland, Deborah | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2020 |
All 5 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
CMS lists this facility under the chain Pruitthealth — 95 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 94 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jolley Acres Healthcare Center | 1.0 mi | Orangeburg, SC | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Edisto Post Acute | 1.2 mi | Orangeburg, SC | ★☆☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| The Oaks Post Acute | 4.8 mi | Orangeburg, SC | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Calhoun Convalescent Center | 12.5 mi | Saint Matthews, SC | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Pruitthealth- Bamberg | 16.2 mi | Bamberg, SC | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 |
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 425085.
May we use Google Analytics cookies to measure visits and pages viewed? Optional — every feature works without them. Privacy details