No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Grangeville Health & Rehabilitation of Cascadia

410 East North Second Street, Grangeville, ID 83530 · For profit - Corporation · 60 certified beds · (208) 983-1131 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (208) 983-1131 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Behavioral-health or dementia-care citation — no harm found (F0758)
Insights

On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.

In its favor
  • a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
  • no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
  • no federal fines or payment denials on record
Worth asking about
  • nursing-staff turnover (75%) runs well above the national median (45%)

One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.

A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.

4/5
CMS overall
4 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 4 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 3 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 4 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
214 S Main St · (208) 628-3666 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
146 W Main St · (208) 983-1090 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
222 E Main St · (208) 983-0190 · Call to confirm hours
Park
N Myrtle St · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship

Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.

Quality measures — how residents actually fare

Overall quality measures 4 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 4 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 4 of 5

Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.

Trend — is this home getting better or worse?

Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 1 to 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.

Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.

Overall rating4★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased17.1%15.6%15.4%worse
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight9.7%5.2%5.4%worse
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder2.2%1.2%0.9%worse
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection2.0%2.0%2.0%typical
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms20.9%15.1%6.5%worse than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.1%0.1%better
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury1.3%3.0%3.3%better
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened16.7%16.1%16.1%typical
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication17.6%16.3%18.9%typical
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine90.7%96.2%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers4.0%3.2%4.7%better
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control28.2%22.1%21.2%worse
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table21.4%20.1%17.1%worse
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication0.0%1.8%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine57.1%86.5%79.4%worse
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission11.9%17.7%22.6%better
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit14.2%12.3%12.0%worse
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days0.851.171.67better
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days1.761.661.80typical

On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.

§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.

CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.

Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital

Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.

47.7% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 84 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

47.7%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
10.9%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
29.6%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.12U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.09hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.03hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
<0.01hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 29.6% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 27 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.

Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.12 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 8% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 3% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.

This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.

See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF47.7%CMS range 38.8–56.051.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF10.9%CMS range 7.8–16.810.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge29.6%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge29.6%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge22.2%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified97.2%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care settingnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay0.0%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened0.0%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization6.3%CMS range 3.0–10.97.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs0.871.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS makes no comparison for this measure

From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.

Staffing

0.71
RN hours/ resident / day
0.41
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.31
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.43
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.47
RN hoursweekends
75.0%
Total nursing turnover
28.6%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 60 beds and averages 43.1 residents a day — about 72% occupied, or roughly 17 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.43 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.71 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.31 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.

Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.09 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.57 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.80 to 0.47 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 75% is well above the national median of 45%.

Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.

Inspection trend

6
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2025-08-08)
2
at the previous standard inspection (2024-10-25)

Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.

Inspection deficiencies

State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.

13 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.

  • Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-08-08 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespread
    Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, Food Drug Administration (FDA) Food Code review, record review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure kitchen equipment was maintained, cleaned, and sanitized. These deficiencies had the potential to affect the 42 residents who consumed food prepared by the facility. This placed residents at risk for potential foodborne illnesses and adverse health outcomes. Findings include:The FDA Food Code Section 4-602.11 Equipment Food-Contact Surfaces and Utensils documented, surfaces of utensils and equipment contacting food that is not time/temperature control for food shall be cleaned. Absent manufacturer specifications, at a frequency necessary to preclude accumulation of soil or mold.The FDA Code Section 4-602.12 Cooking and Baking Equipment documented, food-contact surfaces of cooking equipment must be cleaned to prevent encrustations that may impede heat transfer necessary to adequately cook food. Encrusted equipment may also serve as an insect attractant when not in use.The FDA Food Code Section 6-501.12 Cleaning, Frequency and…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-08-08 · tag F0641 — isolated
    Ensure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual, record review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents' Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessments included correct assessment information. This was true for 1 of 2 residents (#5 and #26) whose MDS records were reviewed for accuracy. This deficient practice had the potential for negative outcomes if residents were not assessed and/or monitored due to inaccurate assessments. Findings include:The RAI Manual, revised 10/1/2024, documented section A1500, PASRR (Preadmission Screening and Resident Review), was to be coded yes when a PASRR Level II screening determined a resident had a serious mental illness and/or intellectual disability, or related condition. 1. Resident #5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including paranoid schizophrenia and adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood. Resident #5's Annual MDS Assessment, dated 8/8/24, documented under A1500 in Section A,…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-08-08 · tag F0726 — failed to have competent, trained nursing staff — isolated
    Ensure that nurses and nurse aides have the appropriate competencies to care for every resident in a way that maximizes each resident's well being.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, staff interview, and record review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure a licensed nurse had the specific skill set necessary to appropriately administer an insulin injection. This was true for RN #1, when she was observed administering an insulin injection. This failure created the potential for adverse effects if the resident did not receive the complete dose of their insulin. Findings include:The [NAME] Pharmaceuticals, Semglee Prefilled Insulin Pen- Instructions For Use, approved 7/2021, documented the following instructions:- Always perform the safety test before each injection. Performing the safety test ensures that you get an accurate dose by ensuring that pen and needle work properly and removing air bubbles. The safety test instructions direct the person preparing the injection, after attaching a new pen needle, to select a dose of 2 units of insulin, to hold the pen needle pointing upwards, tap the cartridge so that any air bubbles rise up to the needle, then press…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Nursing and Physician Services Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-08-08 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, staff interview, and record review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure infection prevention standards of practice were maintained during insulin administration. This was true for RN #1 when she was observed administering an insulin injection. This failure created the potential for harm to all residents in the facility by placing them at risk for cross contamination and infection. Findings include:The [NAME] Pharmaceuticals, Semglee Prefilled Insulin Pen- Instructions for Use, approved 7/2021, documented to always wipe the rubber seal on the insulin pen with alcohol before attaching a new pen needle on to the insulin pen.The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Infection Control, Standard Precautions for All Patient Care, web page, dated 4/3/24, accessed on 8/14/24, documented Standard Precautions are used for all patient care. They're based on a risk assessment and make use of common sense practices and personal protective equipment use that protect healthcare providers from…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-08-08 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — isolated
    Develop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, CDC guidance, policy review and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were offered and/or administered the appropriate pneumococcal vaccine as indicated. This was true for 2 of 5 residents (#5 and #13) reviewed for pneumococcal immunizations. This deficient practice placed residents at risk of developing pneumococcal pneumonia, a potentially life-threatening condition. Findings include:The facility's Pneumococcal Program policy for residents revised 2/22/22, documented the following:Adults 65 years or older who have not previously received PCV (a form of pneumococcal pneumonia vaccine) or whose previous vaccination history is unknown, should receive 1 dose of either PCV20 or PCV15. a. If PCV20 is used, no additional dosing recommended. b. If PCV15 is used, it should be followed by a dose of PPSV23 (another form of pneumococcal pneumonia vaccine) one year later.Adults aged 19-64 years with certain underlying medical conditions or other risk factors who…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-08-08 · tag F0887 — isolated
    Educate residents and staff on COVID-19 vaccination, offer the COVID-19 vaccine to eligible residents and staff after education, and properly document each resident and staff member's vaccination status.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, CDC guidance, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure COVID-19 vaccinations were offered and administered to the residents. This was true for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #17) whose COVID-19 vaccinations were reviewed. This deficient practice placed residents at risk of severe illness, hospitalization, and death due to SARS-CoV-2 (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus - the virus that causes the COVID-19 illness) and had the potential to affect all residents in the facility. Findings include:The CDC website article titled: Staying Up to Date with COVID-19 Vaccines dated 6/6/25 and accessed on 8/15/25 documented:Protection from COVID-19 vaccine decreases over time.Immunity after COVID-19 infection decreases with time.The 2024-2025 vaccine is especially important if you: a. Never received a COVID-19 vaccine, b. Are ages 65 years and older c. Are at high risk for severe COVID-19 d. Are living in a long-term care facility.1. Resident #17 was initially…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · F2024-10-25 · tag F0727 — failed to provide required RN coverage — widespread
    Have a registered nurse on duty 8 hours a day; and select a registered nurse to be the director of nurses on a full time basis.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on review of the Payroll Based Journal (PBJ) Staffing Data Report, record review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure an RN was on-site for 8 consecutive hours, 7 days a week. This failure created the potential for harm if routine and/or emergency nursing needs were unmet and had the potential to affect the 46 residents living at the facility. Findings include: The facility's PBJ Staffing Data Report for Fiscal Year, Quarter 3, 2024 (April 1 - June 30), documented the facility reported an RN was not on-site on the following 7 dates: -Sunday 4/7/24 -Saturday 4/20/24 -Sunday 4/21/24 -Saturday 5/4/24 -Sunday 5/5/24 -Saturday 6/1/24 -Saturday 6/15/24 The facility's Three-Week Nursing Hours worksheet, completed by the Administrator, documented there fewer than 8 consecutive hours of RN on-site coverage for the following 6 dates: -Sunday 9/29/24 documented 1.50 RN hours -Saturday 10/5/24 documented 2.25 RN hours -Sunday 10/6/24 documented 1.38 RN hours -Saturday 10/12/24 documented 0.00 RN hours -Sunday 10/13/24 documented 4.22 RN hours -Saturday…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Nursing and Physician Services Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-10-25 · tag F0645 — isolated
    PASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure a Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR), was completed within the required timeframe for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #40) reviewed for PASARR screenings. This failure created the potential for harm if residents required, but did not receive, specialized services for mental health while residing in the facility. Findings include: Appendix PP of the State Operation Manual, revised 8/8/24, documented all applicants to Medicaid-certified nursing facilities are to be screened for possible serious mental disorders or intellectual disabilities and related conditions. This initial pre-screening is referred to as PASARR Level 1 and should be completed prior to admission to a nursing facility. Resident #40 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including traumatic brain injury and alcohol-induced dementia. Resident #40's care plan, created on 9/4/24, documented Resident #40 was prescribed an…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Fcited before2020-02-06 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespread
    Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, policy review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure food was prepared and served under sanitary conditions when staff members' hair was observed not properly restrained in a hairnet. This failure created the potential for each of the 38 residents residing at the facility to be exposed to food contamination and potential disease-causing pathogens. Findings include: The facility's policy and procedure for Food Handling, dated 6/13/18, directed food handlers to wear hairnets or caps to effectively keep hair from contacting exposed food, clean equipment, utensils and linens. The 2017 Food and Drug Administration Food Code, Chapter 2, regarding hygienic practices and hair restraints, documented Food employees shall wear hair restraints such as hats, hair coverings or nets, beard restraints, and clothing that covers body hair, that are designed and worn to effectively keep their hair from contacting exposed food, clean equipment, utensils, and linens and unwrapped single-service and single-use articles. On 2/3/20 at 11:35 AM, Dietary…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2020-02-06 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — pattern
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, staff interview, and policy review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure staff performed proper hand hygiene and appropriate peri-care during resident cares. This was true for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #3) who was observed during resident cares. The deficient practice placed residents at risk of infection from cross-contamination. Findings include: The facility's policy and procedure for Handwashing, dated 6/13/18, directed staff to wash their hands before applying and removing gloves, before handling clean supplies or equipment, and before and after contact with non-intact skin, mucous membranes, blood, or any moist body fluid, even if gloves were worn during contact. The facility's policy and procedure for Incontinent Care While in Bed, dated 2/27/18, documented staff were to: * Remove the incontinent brief from the patient by rolling the brief/pad toward the inside soiled area, and remove the brief from front to back containing the fecal matter as much as possible * Cleanse the skin of patient from front to back and clean to dirty using…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2020-02-06 · tag F0552 — isolated
    Ensure that residents are fully informed and understand their health status, care and treatments.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure informed consent was obtained prior to initiation of medications for 2 of 5 residents (#5 and #32) who were reviewed for unnecessary medications. This deficient practice placed residents at risk of receiving medications without knowledge of the risks and benefits associated with the medications and the right to refuse the medications. Findings include: a. Resident #5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including dementia. Resident #5's physician's order included Donezepil (used to treat confusion related to dementia) 5 mg at bedtime, started on 10/25/18. Resident #5's record did not include documentation he consented to the Donezepil, or was informed about beneficial effects and possible side effects of the medication. b. Resident #32 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including post-concussion syndrome (a condition associated with a head injury causing symptoms…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2020-02-06 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
    Provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, policy review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure professional standards of practice were followed when a) blood pressure medications were held when a resident's pulse was outside of ordered parameters for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #12) reviewed for unnecessary medications; and b) staff failed to dispose controlled medications consistent with the facility's policy to prevent drug diversion for 2 of 2 licensed nurses (LPN #1 and LPN #2) who were interviewed during medication cart inspection. These failed practices placed Resident #12 at risk of dangerously low blood pressure, and created the potential for harm for each of the 38 residents residing in the facility if controlled medications were diverted and residents did not receive medications as ordered. Findings include: 1. Resident #12 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including hypertension (high blood pressure). Resident #12's physician orders included the following: *…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2020-02-06 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolated
    Implement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents receiving psychotropic medications had clear indications for use of the medications and clinical rationale supporting the continued use of the medications. This was true for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #12) whose records were reviewed for unnecessary medications. This deficient practice had the potential for harm if residents received psychotropic medications that were unwarranted and used for excessive duration. Findings include: Resident #12 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including depression and anxiety. Resident #12's quarterly MDS assessment, dated 11/25/19, documented she was cognitively intact and received anti-psychotic and anti-depressant medications in the past 7 days. Resident #12's physician order report for 2/1/20 to 2/29/20, included the following: * Zoloft (anti-depressant medication) 50 mg tablet once a day for depression. * Risperdal (anti-psychotic medication) 1…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
  • Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
  • State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to CASCADIA HEALTHCARE — 46 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 4 of 53.0+1.0 vs chain
Health inspection 4 of 52.8+1.2 vs chain
Staffing 3 of 52.7+0.3 vs chain
Quality measures 4 of 53.9+0.1 vs chain
The other 45 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.0★, per CMS)
1 of 5Caldwell Care of CascadiaCaldwell, ID 1 of 5Cascadia of BoiseBoise, ID 1 of 5Cherry Ridge of CascadiaEmmett, ID 1 of 5Coeur d Alene Health of CascadiaCoeur d'Alene, ID 1 of 5Colfax Health and Rehabilitation of CascadiaColfax, WA 1 of 5Colville Health and Rehabilitation of CascadiaColville, WA 1 of 5Curry Village Health And Rehab Of CascadiaBrookings, OR 1 of 5Eagle Rock Health and Rehabilitation of CascadiaIdaho Falls, ID 1 of 5Mount Ascension Transitional Care Of CascadiaHelena, MT 1 of 5Orchards of Cascadia, TheNampa, ID 1 of 5Spokane Valley Health And Rehabilitation Of CascadSpokane Valley, WA 1 of 5Teton Healthcare of CascadiaIdaho Falls, ID 2 of 5Cascadia of NampaNampa, ID 2 of 5Royal Plaza Health and Rehabilitation of CascadiaLewiston, ID 2 of 5Salem Transitional CareSalem, OR 2 of 5Secora Rehabilitation Of CascadiaPortland, OR 2 of 5Snohomish Health and Rehabilitation of CascadiaSnohomish, WA 3 of 5Arbor Valley of CascadiaBoise, ID 3 of 5Brookfield Health And Rehab Of CascadiaBattle Ground, WA 3 of 5Clarkston Health And Rehab Of CascadiaClarkston, WA 3 of 5Clearwater Health & Rehabilitation of CascadiaOrofino, ID 3 of 5Highland Health And Rehabilitation Of CascadiaBellingham, WA 3 of 5Northpark Health And Rehabilitation Of CascadiaPhoenix, AZ 3 of 5Shaw Mountain of CascadiaBoise, ID 3 of 5Weiser Care of CascadiaWeiser, ID 4 of 5Canyon West of CascadiaCaldwell, ID 4 of 5Cascadia of LewistonLewiston, ID 4 of 5Cove of Cascadia, TheBellevue, ID 4 of 5Lewiston Transitional Care of CascadiaLewiston, ID 4 of 5Mountain Valley of CascadiaKellogg, ID 4 of 5Paradise Creek Health and Rehab of CascadiaMoscow, ID 4 of 5Stafholt Health And Rehabilitation Of CascadiaBlaine, WA 4 of 5Wellspring Health & Rehabilitation of CascadiaNampa, ID 5 of 5Alderwood Park Health And Rehab Of CascadiaBellingham, WA 5 of 5Aspen Park of CascadiaMoscow, ID 5 of 5Bend Transitional CareBend, OR 5 of 5Boswell Transitional Care Of CascadiaSun City, AZ 5 of 5Creekside Health and Rehabilitation of CascadiaEugene, OR 5 of 5Fairlawn Health And Rehabilitation Of CascadiaGresham, OR 5 of 5Hudson Bay Health And RehabilitationVancouver, WA

Showing 40 of 45; lowest-rated first.

A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleSince
HAMMOND, OWENIndividualINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 03/01/2022
LAFORTE, STEPHENIndividualINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 06/05/2025
NELSON, TIMOTHYIndividualINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 06/05/2025
GRANGEVILLE 410 REALTY, LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNFsince 06/05/2025
WHITE OAK HEALTHCARE FINANCE LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTERESTsince 08/11/2022
CASCADIA HC GROUP LLCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 06/05/2025
CASCADIA HEALTHCARE LLCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 09/17/2021
CASCADIA HOLDCO LLCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 06/05/2025
CASCADIA SERVICES LLCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/21/2025
JENKINS, ADAMIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 02/26/2025
RUDOLPH, JOHNIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 07/04/2025

CMS files one row per role, so the 18 rows in the source record cover these 11 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.

6 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.

Follow the money — this home’s finances

Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.

$4.9M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-9.8%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$798K
Related-party expense15% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 67%Medicare 12%Other / private 21%

This home reported $798K paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 15% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.

Cost & finances

$381per resident / day
operating cost
$11,591per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$347per day
avg. revenue, all payers

Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.

What families pay in ID

Paying with Medicaid

This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Idaho Medicaid page.

Typical monthly cost in Idaho
$10,494/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$12,167/mo
Nursing home (private)
$5,175/mo
Assisted living

Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.

Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 135080. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-08-08, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →

Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →

Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.

What to do next