Assisted-living facilities with on-site nursing facilities · South Carolina

The Bridge at Charleston

North Charleston, SC · ~42 workers · 5 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
17.7
Avg TCR
3.8
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

The Bridge at Charleston runs at 465% of its industry's injury rate - far more dangerous than the typical Assisted-living facilities with on-site nursing facilities workplace, earning a grade F.

The Bridge at Charleston: 17.7 TCR = 465% of Assisted-living facilities with on-site nursing facilities BLS 3.8 · 5y Form 300A (see methodology below)

The Bridge at Charleston safety composite

The Bridge at Charleston scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 51% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 8%), blended into one 0-100 breakdown against same-industry peers. A missing measure drops out and redistributes its weight rather than deflating the score. This is a per-dimension breakdown, distinct from the single letter grade above it (which weights TCR alone against the BLS industry benchmark).

F

19/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 17.68 per 100 workers

Safer than 8% of industry peers

DART rate
F 15.15 per 100 workers

Safer than 8% of industry peers

Fatalities
D 0

Safer than 51% of industry peers

Benchmarked live against every credibly-rated employer in the same NAICS industry code in the current OSHA extract (a segment must have at least 8 rated peers to benchmark). Not a legal or compliance determination; PlainSafetyScore's own weighting (TCR 40%, DART 35%, fatalities 25%).

TCR Δ

−10.8

2018→2024

The Bridge at Charleston injury rate improved

The Bridge at Charleston's TCR fell 10.8 from 25.9 in 2018 to 15.2 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2018 at 25.9 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0.86× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2018=25.9 · 2020=14.9 · 2022=22.4 · 2023=10.0 · 2024=15.2

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 623311 · North Charleston, SC ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade F · TCR 17.7 · 465% of ind

  • DART 15.2 DART
  • RANK #71/76
  • PHOTO Maplewood Senior Liv…
  • BOOK 5y book
  • INJ 22 inj
  • SIZE ~42 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Maplewood Senior Living at Chardon (0.0 TCR gap)

Read with this employer → · Industry book → · South Carolina employers → · Look up another →

The Bridge at Charleston in the TCR neighbourhood

Average Total Case Rate among this establishment and nearest same-industry peers

TCR

What this shows The Bridge at Charleston averages 17.7 TCR (465% of the Assisted-living facilities with on-site nursing facilities BLS benchmark).

Source U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA Injury Tracking Application (Form 300A) As of 2026-08-25

The Bridge at Charleston TCR series: 2018=25.9 · 2020=14.9 · 2022=22.4 · 2023=10 · 2024=15.2 · BLS 3.8

Where The Bridge at Charleston falls in its industry

4,127 Assisted-living facilities wit establishments

Safer than 8% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 6.9.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to South Carolina alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #71 safest of 76 Assisted-living facilities wit employers in South Carolina.

The Bridge at Charleston (42 employees, TCR 17.7) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 66 employees and a TCR of 6.9 2×2 strategic matrix plotting 30 entities by Average employees (X) and Total Case Rate (Y), with a crosshair dividing the plot into four quadrants. Larger & higher-riskSmaller & higher-riskLarger & saferSmaller & safer than peers 050100150200250 05101520 Average employees Total Case Rate The Bridge at Charleston
The Bridge at Charleston (42 employees, TCR 17.7) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 66 employees and a TCR of 6.9

The Bridge at Charleston has fewer employees than the Assisted-living facilities with on-site median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 6.9. Workforce size and injury rate do not always move together within the same industry -- some of its smaller peers run higher rates than its larger ones, and vice versa.

Year-by-Year Safety Data

Year TCR DART Injuries Illnesses Fatalities
2024 15.2 15.2 5 0 0
2023 10.0 10.0 2 2 0
2022 22.4 22.4 4 4 0
2020 14.9 7.5 4 0 0
2018 25.9 14.8 7 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

623311 · SC · North Charleston

4,127 Assisted-living facilities with on-site nursing facilities employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 7,610 rated employers in South Carolina with headcount on file · 256 employers in North Charleston, SC · 4 cross-state NAT-TCR peers · 4 cross-state NAT-SIZE peers. Closest matches by relationship code are listed below.

Rel Establishment Metric
NAICS-TCR Maplewood Senior Living at Chardon 17.7 TCR
NAICS-TCR Horizon House 17.7 TCR
NAICS-TCR Kingston Bay Senior Living 17.7 TCR
NAICS-TCR Superior Residences of Clermont 17.7 TCR
STATE-SIZE Titan Production Company, LLC 42 FTE
STATE-SIZE Newberry Electric Cooperative,Inc. 42 FTE
STATE-SIZE Spartanburg Resource Center PNG 42 FTE
STATE-SIZE DRB Group South Carolina, LLC- Charleston Division 42 FTE
CITY-NEAR Charleston County 2,601 FTE
CITY-NEAR Palmetto Goodwill Services 1,105 FTE
CITY-NEAR Trident Medical Center 1,015 FTE
CITY-NEAR SRC Charleston ISS Division 815 FTE
NAT-TCR Morehead City, NC - SEC 17.7 TCR
NAT-TCR R31 Asheville NC 17.7 TCR
NAT-TCR Chief Delivery LLC 17.7 TCR
NAT-TCR Bristol Farms - 007 - BF Newport Beach 17.7 TCR
NAT-SIZE The Pearl at Dallas 42 FTE
NAT-SIZE Superior Plastics Extrusion Co - NC 42 FTE
NAT-SIZE RBHJAX Consulting LLC 42 FTE
NAT-SIZE Sonesta Select San Francisco Airport 42 FTE

Rel codes: NAICS-TCR · STATE-SIZE · CITY-NEAR · NAT-TCR/NAT-SIZE cross-state. Read with this employer →

Data Source: OSHA Injury Tracking Application (ITA), mandatory establishment-level injury/illness reports. Grades compare employer Total Case Rate (TCR) to BLS IIF industry benchmarks. Data covers years reported by this establishment: 2024, 2023, 2022, 2020, 2018. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.