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

Clearwater Health & Rehabilitation of Cascadia

1204 Shriver Road, Orofino, ID 83544 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 60 certified beds · (208) 476-4568 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (208) 476-4568 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Abuse/neglect citation on record (F0602) — cited Apr 2025
Insights

This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.

In its favor
  • a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
  • no federal fines or payment denials on record
Worth asking about
  • it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0602), cited Apr 2025
  • it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
  • a high number of inspection citations overall (24) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
  • about 17% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies

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.

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

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★ 2/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
301 Cedar St · (208) 476-4555 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
429 Michigan Ave · (208) 476-5727 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
125 Michigan Ave · (208) 476-7145 · Call to confirm hours
Park
101 Michigan Ave · (208) 352-3212 · Typically dawn to dusk

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 fell from 5 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 increased25.0%15.6%15.4%worse
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight2.4%5.2%5.4%better
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.0%1.2%0.9%better
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection1.4%2.0%2.0%better
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms9.2%15.1%6.5%better 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 injury2.1%3.0%3.3%better
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened22.4%16.1%16.1%worse
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication6.3%16.3%18.9%better
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%96.2%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers0.6%3.2%4.7%better
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control26.9%22.1%21.2%worse
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table18.3%20.1%17.1%typical
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication0.0%1.8%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine87.2%86.5%79.4%typical
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission26.2%17.7%22.6%worse
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit6.9%12.3%12.0%better
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days0.841.171.67better
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days1.581.661.80better

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.

56.0% 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 95 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

56.0%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
11.1%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
55.6%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.15U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.08hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.06hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.01hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 55.6% 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 36 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 0.15 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 12% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 10% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. 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 SNF56.0%CMS range 46.2–65.251.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF11.1%CMS range 7.7–17.110.7%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 discharge55.6%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 discharge61.1%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 discharge52.8%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 identified88.0%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 discharge87.1%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay2.0%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 worsened4.0%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 hospitalization6.6%CMS range 3.2–12.07.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs0.921.02Oct 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

0.85
RN hours/ resident / day
0.28
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.14
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.27
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.42
RN hoursweekends
54.1%
Total nursing turnover
22.2%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 60 beds and averages 39.4 residents a day — about 66% occupied, or roughly 21 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. 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 3.27 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.85 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.14 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 2.66 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.51 on weekdays — 24% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 1.03 to 0.42 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 54% is about the same as 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

14
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2026-06-26)
7
at the previous standard inspection (2025-04-17)

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.

24 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 14 are one tap away and print in full.

  • Potential for harm · F2026-06-26 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — widespread
    Dispose of garbage and refuse properly.
    What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview, and review of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration 2022 Food Code, it was determined the facility failed to ensure garbage cans were properly closed with lids to minimize attracting pests and rodents into the kitchen. This was true for 1 of 2 garbage cans observed in the kitchen. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all residents and staff in the facility. Findings include:U.S Food and Drug Administration 2022 Food Code, 5-501.113 Covering Receptacles. Receptacles and waste handling units for REFUSE, recyclables, and returnables shall be kept covered: (A) Inside the FOOD ESTABLISHMENT if the receptacles and units: (1) Contain FOOD residue and are not in continuous use; or (2) After they are filled.On 6/22/26 at 11:52 AM, a large gray garbage can on wheels was observed halfway under the dirty dish counter without a lid.On 6/22/26 at 3:01 PM, the Kitchen Manager stated she didn't know the garbage can needed to be covered and further stated she was under the impression it was okay to be stored under the counter without a lid.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has plan of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-06-26 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — pattern
    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, review of the FDA Food Code, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the kitchen equipment, ice machines, and cutting surfaces were maintained, clean, and food was stored in a safe and sanitary manner. These deficiencies had the potential to affect the 36 residents who consumed food prepared by the facility. This placed residents at risk for potential contamination of food and adverse health outcomes, including food-borne illnesses. Findings include: 1.The FDA Food Code Section 6-501.14 (A) documented cleaning ventilation systems intake and exhaust air ducts shall be cleaned so they are not a source of contamination by dust, dirt, and other materials.On 6/22/26 at 12:00 PM, the internal walk-in refrigerator fans were observed with a thick gray and fuzzy appearing build-up.On 6/22/26 at 3:05 PM, the Kitchen Manager stated maintenance cleans the fans in the refrigerator and confirmed the refrigerator fans were not clean. 2.The FDA Food Code Section 3-501.17 Ready-to-Eat, TCS (time/temperature control for safety) food, date marking,…

    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 plan of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-06-26 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolated
    Honor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
    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 State Operations Manual (SOM), record review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents exercised their right to formulate an Advanced Directive. This was true for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #5) whose records were reviewed. This failed practice created the potential for an adverse outcome if the residents' wishes were not followed. Findings include:The SOM, Appendix PP, revised 7/23/25, defined an Advance Directive is a written instruction such as a living will or durable power of attorney for health care, recognized under State law (whether statutory or as recognized by the courts of the State), relating to the provision of health care when the individual is incapacitated. Physician Orders for Life-sustaining Treatment (or POLST) paradigm form is a form designed to improve patient care by creating a portable medical order form that records patient's treatment wishes so that emergency personnel know what treatments the patient wants in the event of 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 Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has plan of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-06-26 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolated
    Honor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
    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, policy review, and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to provide a homelike environment when resident's walls were left unrepaired and baseboard heater coils were left exposed. This was true for 1 of 12 residents (Resident #13) whose rooms were observed. This created the potential for psychosocial harm and embarrassment if residents did not have a homelike environment if their walls and baseboard heaters were not repaired and did not have consistent wall paint. Findings include: The facility's Homelike Environment policy, revised on 9/17/25, documented the facility supports a resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment to promote dignity, independence, and quality of life. Interior and exterior surfaces necessary for the health, safety, and comfort of the residents shall be kept at the highest practicable level, clean and in good repair.Resident #13 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including dementia,…

    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 plan of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-06-26 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolated
    Timely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
    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 policy review, record review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure an allegation of resident abuse was reported to the State Survey Agency Portal within 2 - 24 hours. This was true for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #6) reviewed for abuse and neglect. This failure created the potential for harm if allegations were not acted upon in a timely manner and the resident abuse continued. Findings include:The State Operation Manual Appendix PP, issued 7/23/25, documented the reporting requirements of alleged abuse to the State Agency as follows:1.All alleged violations of abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of resident property.2.The results of all investigations of the alleged violations.3. Immediately but not later than 2 hours - if the alleged violation involves abuse or results in serious bodily injury.4.Not later than 24 hours - if the alleged violations involve neglect, exploitation, mistreatment, or…

    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.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has plan of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-06-26 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolated
    Respond appropriately to all alleged violations.
    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, review of the SOM, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure an allegation of abuse was investigated thoroughly for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #6) reviewed for abuse and neglect. This failure created the potential for residents to be subjected to ongoing abuse and risk of physical and psychosocial harm. Findings include:The SOM Appendix PP, issued 7/23/25, documented the facility must take the following actions in response to an alleged violation of abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment:1.Thoroughly investigate the alleged violation.2.Prevent further abuse, neglect, exploitation and mistreatment from occurring while the investigation was in progress.3.Take appropriate action, as a result of the investigation.Resident #6 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including dementia with psychotic disturbance, difficulty walking and heart disease.A Comprehensive MDS assessment dated [DATE], documented Resident #6 was severely…

    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.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has plan of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-06-26 · tag F0628 — isolated
    Provide the required documentation or notification related to the resident's needs, appeal rights, or bed-hold policies.
    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 interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide hospital transfer documents for 2 of 3 residents (#8 and #42) reviewed for hospitalization. This deficient practice created the potential for residents to experience harm if they were not treated in a timely manner due to lack of information. Findings include:The facility's Discharge or Transfer policy revised 8/30/25, documented that if a resident was being transferred and return was expected, the following information should be conveyed to the receiving provider:1. Contact information of the practitioner who was responsible for the care of the resident;2. Resident representative information, including contact information;3. Advance directive information;4. Special instructions and/or precautions for ongoing care, as appropriate such as:a. Treatments and devices (oxygen, implants, IVs, tubes/catheters).b. Transmission-based precautions such as contact, droplet, or airborne;c. Special risks such as…

    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 plan of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-06-26 · 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 (Resident #13) 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 10/1/2025, documented section A1500, Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) was to be coded yes when a PASRR Level II screening determines a resident had a serious mental illness and/or intellectual ability, or related condition.Resident #13 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including PTSD, TBI, anxiety, and major depressive disorder.Resident #13's admission MDS assessment dated [DATE], documented under A1500 in Section A, no for the question, Is the resident…

    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 plan of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-06-26 · 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 review of records, policy review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure residents received further evaluation after being identified as having major mental illness. This was true for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #8) reviewed for PASRR Level II evaluations. This deficient practice created the potential for harm if residents specialized services for mental health needs were not evaluated by an appropriate state-designated authority. Findings include: The facility's Pre-admission Screening & Resident Review (PASRR) Process policy revised 8/29/25, documented a positive Level I screen necessitates an in-depth evaluation of the individual by the state-designated authority, known as PASARR Level II. When a Level II PASARR screening is warranted, it should be obtained (as well as determination letter) prior to admission, unless otherwise authorized by such agency.Resident #8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including PTSD and major depressive…

    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 plan of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-06-26 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
    Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
    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 records review, policy review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure comprehensive resident-centered care plans included the target behavior being monitored for residents. This was true for 2 of 5 residents (#4 and #8) whose care plans were reviewed. This deficient practice created the potential for harm should residents receive inappropriate or inadequate care. Findings include:The facility's Comprehensive Care Plans & Conferences policy revised 9/3/25, documented, The facility will ensure that each resident has a timely, person-centered comprehensive care plan developed and maintained in accordance with professional standards of practice. The care plan will reflect the residents' individual conditions, risks, needs, behaviors, cultural values, and preferences, and will include measurable goals, appropriate interventions, and realistic timeframes.1. Resident #4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including major…

    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 plan of correction
Show the remaining 14 citations
  • Potential for harm · D2026-06-26 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolated
    Provide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
    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, policy review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were provided with respiratory services consistent with professional standards of practice. This was true for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #15) whose respiratory device was not stored properly. This deficient practice created the potential to cause contamination of respiratory equipment and increase the risk of respiratory infection for residents who require oxygen therapy. Findings include: The facility's Oxygen Administration, Safety, Storage, & Maintenance policy, revised on 10/10/25 documented to, Store oxygen and respiratory supplies in a plastic bag when not in use. Resident #15 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses including COPD, congestive heart failure (CHF- a weakness of the heart that leads to a buildup of fluid in the lungs and surrounding body tissues), and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA-a chronic disorder where the upper airway repeatedly collapses during sleep,…

    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 plan of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-06-26 · tag F0728 — failed to protect against nurse-aide misconduct — isolated
    Ensure that nurse aides who have worked more than 4 months, are trained and competent; and nurse aides who have worked less than 4 months are enrolled in appropriate training.
    What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

    Based on record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure nursing assistants (NAs) had completed or had enrolled in a state approved training and competency evaluation program within four months of hire. This was true for 1 of 6 NAs (NA #1) whose personnel file was reviewed. This failure had the potential to compromise the quality and safety of care provided to all residents living in the facility. Findings include:NA #1 was hired on 12/15/26 and had not obtained their CNA certification and had not enrolled in a CNA program within four months of hire. On 6/26/26 at 12:16 PM, the HR Manager confirmed NA #1 had not completed state approved training and competency evaluation program. The HR Manager further stated NA #1 last worked on 4/30/26 and confirmed NA #1 should not have been working after 4/15/26.

    Nursing and Physician Services Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has plan of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-06-26 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolated
    Ensure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
    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 residents were free from significant medication errors. This was true for 3 of 3 residents (#4, #28, and #35) whose medications were reviewed. This deficient practice created the potential for Resident #4 to develop hypoglycemia when she did not receive her insulin. Resident #28 was at risk of worsening infection when he did not receive two doses of his antibiotic. Resident #35 was at risk of treatment failure when his cholestyramine was administered at the same time as his other medications, Findings include:The facility's Medication Administration policy, revised 9/10/25, documented that staff responsible for medication administration should follow the ten rights of medication administration.a. Right Medicationb. Right Residentc. Right Dosed. Right Routee. Right Time and Frequencyf. Right Documentationg. Right Assessmenth. Right to Refusei. Right Evaluationj. Right Education 1.Resident #4 was admitted to…

    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 plan of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-06-26 · tag F0947 — failed to train nurse aides adequately — isolated
    Ensure nurse aides have the skills they need to care for residents, and give nurse aides education in dementia care and abuse prevention.
    What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

    Based on record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to provide a minimum of 12 hours of in-service education per year for 1 of 5 CNAs (CNA #2) reviewed for sufficient and competent CNA staffing. This failure placed residents at risk of receiving care from staff who are not adequately trained in competencies to meet residents' needs. Findings Include: On 6/25/26, the prior year's in-service training was requested for CNA #2.On 6/25/26 at 4:12 PM, the ACNO stated she was unable to provide documentation of CNA #2's 12-hour annual training.

    Nursing and Physician Services Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has plan of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-04-17 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — pattern
    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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

    Based on observation, Food Drug Administration (FDA) Food Code, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure kitchen equipment was maintained. This deficiency had the potential to affect the 35 residents who consumed food prepared by the facility. This placed residents at risk for potential foodborne illnesses and adverse health outcomes due to contaminated food services equipment. Findings include: The FDA Code Section 4-602.12 Cooking and Baking Equipment documented: Food-contact surfaces of cooking equipment must be cleaned to prevent encrustation's that may impede heat transfer necessary to adequately cook food. Encrusted equipment may also serve as an insect attractant when not in use. On 4/17/25 at 8:03 AM, an aluminum baking sheet was observed being removed from the oven. The baking sheet was observed to have a dark film coating the pan and brown and black encrustation's with the hashbrowns being prepared. On 4/17/25 9:13 AM, the CDM stated the pans should be clean and should not have stains on them.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-04-17 · tag F0602 — failed to protect residents from theft of their belongings — isolated
    Protect each resident from the wrongful use of the resident's belongings or money.
    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, record review, and review of the State Survey Agency's Long-Term Care Reporting Portal, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were free from misappropriation of a controlled pain medication. This was true for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #44) reviewed for misappropriation of resident property. This failed practice created the potential for all facility residents to experience uncontrolled pain if misappropriation of their controlled pain medications went undetected, or if their controlled pain medication was not administered. Findings include: The facility's Drug Diversion policy, revised on 9/22/22, documented facility management shall investigate and make every reasonable effort to reconcile reported controlled substance discrepancies. The policy documented investigations would include interviews, medical record review, observation of facility practices, identify negative outcomes with residents, and evaluate if the loss is associated with specific individuals. 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.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-04-17 · 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 a residents Minimum Data Set assessment included correct information. This was true for 1 of 12 residents (Resident #29) whose records were reviewed for accuracy. This deficient practice had the potential for negative outcomes if residents were not monitored due to inaccurate assessments. Findings include: The RAI Manual, revised 10/1/24, 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. Resident #29 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including schizoaffective disorder-depressive type, and generalized anxiety disorder. Resident #29's medical record included documentation of a PASRR Level I screening, dated 9/25/24 that identified he had a diagnosis of…

    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 · D2025-04-17 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolated
    Ensure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs.
    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 residents were offered non-pharmacological interventions while receiving opioid pain medication. This was true for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #7) reviewed for unnecessary medication. This failure created the potential for residents to experience adverse outcomes such as increased pain due to lack of offering non-pharmacological interventions. Findings include: Resident #7 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE], following a hip fracture with multiple diagnosis including history of falls, and history of osteoporosis with pathological fractures. Resident #7's care plan, revised on 4/8/25, documented Resident #7 was to use non-pharmacological interventions such as repositioning, reduced stimuli, warm towel, distraction, music, and massage to help manage their pain. A physician order, dated 10/21/19, documented non-pharmacological interventions were to be attempted prior to PRN pain medication administration. The order also…

    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
  • Potential for harm · D2025-04-17 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolated
    Ensure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
    What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure medications available to residents were dated after opened. This was true for 1 of 2 medication carts reviewed for storage and labeling. This failure created the potential for residents to receive expired medication with decreased efficacy. Findings include: On [DATE] at 9:15 AM, during inspection of a medication cart, one prescription eye drop labeled Latanoprost 0.005% (a medication used to reduce intraocular pressure) documented on the packaging discard after 42 days. However, the medication did not document the date the medication was opened. On [DATE] at 9:22 AM, CMA #1 stated, the eye drops did not have an open date, and she could not tell when it was opened.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-04-17 · tag F0825 — isolated
    Provide or get specialized rehabilitative services as required for a resident.
    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, resident interview, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents received physical therapy services as ordered by their physician. This was true for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #12) whose records were reviewed for rehabilitative services. This failure created the potential for Resident #12, who required physical therapy services, to experience decline in their physical functioning and ability to perform activities of daily living (ADL's) when these services were not provided consistently. Findings include: Resident #12 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including muscle weakness, and gait and mobility abnormalities. On 4/14/25 at 4:46 PM, Resident #12 stated she did not have therapy services any more. A physician order, dated 3/7/25, documented Resident #12 was to receive physical therapy evaluation and treatment. Resident #12's care plan, dated 2/17/25, documented physical therapy as ordered. A Physical Therapy Evaluation…

    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 · D2025-04-17 · 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

    Based on observation and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure appropriate infection control measures were maintained when handling an insulin pen. This was true for 1 of 1 (Resident #20) who was observed for insulin administration. This failed practice increased the potential for cross-contamination. Findings include: On 4/15/25 at 9:00 AM, during an insulin administration observation, RN #1 unlocked the safe box and removed the insulin pen in the medication room. She proceeded to verify the pharmacy label and the pen label. RN#1 sanitized the pen and applied a new needle. She then primed the insulin pen and began to set the correct units of insulin to administer on the insulin pen. RN #1 walked out of the med room and proceeded to the nurses' station to verify the physician order and the number of units to administer. After verifying the order and the amount to administer she proceeded to walk into the resident's room and placed the uncapped insulin pen on the sink ledge while she performed hand hygiene. RN #1 then walked over to the resident's bed,…

    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 · E2022-02-04 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — pattern
    Develop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
    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, record review, policy review, and resident and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents' care plans were revised to reflect current needs and interventions. This was true for 3 of 12 residents (#26, #30, and #32) whose care plans were reviewed. This placed residents at risk of adverse outcomes if cares and services were not provided as ordered due to care plans not being revised as residents' needs changed. Findings include: The facility's care plan policy, revised 11/28/19, documented care plans were to be monitored and revised quarterly and annually, or as needed with significant change to reflect change in the resident condition. The policy documented care plans were updated to reflect residents' current status. This policy was not followed. 1. Resident #30 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including chronic kidney disease, Stage 4 pressure ulcer (a pressure ulcer which is very deep, reaching into muscle and bone and causing…

    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 · Dcited before2022-02-04 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
    Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
    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 implement comprehensive, resident-centered care plans to accurately reflect services provided and physician orders. This was true for 1 of 12 residents (Resident #32) whose care plans were reviewed. This placed Resident #32 at risk of worsening pressure ulcers due to a lack of information in her care plan. Findings include: The facility's care plan policy, revised 11/28/19, stated care plans were to be consistent with each resident's specific conditions, risks, needs, behaviors, preferences, and be within standards of practice to meet each resident's needs. The policy also stated care plans were to provide a summary of the resident's conditions, medications, services, and treatments to be administered by the facility, and remained updated to reflect the resident's current status. This policy was not followed. 1. Resident #32 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including pneumonia and 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 · D2022-02-04 · 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 policy review, record review, observation, and staff and resident interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure professional standards of practice were met related to following physician orders. This was true for 3 of 6 residents (#26, #30 and #38) whose records were reviewed. These failed practices placed Resident #30 and Resident #38 at risk of seizures, diabetic coma, and other medical complications related to blood glucose levels which were too high or too low; and Resident #26 at risk of complications and further disability from contractures. Findings include: The Drugs.com website, accessed on 2/7/22, stated, Insulin glargine is a long-acting insulin that starts to work several hours after injection [to lower blood glucose] and keeps working evenly for 24 hours. The website stated insulin glargine may be given at any time of the day; however, once a time is chosen, it is best to inject it within three hours of that time every day. The website stated low blood sugar may happen with…

    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

“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 3 of 53.0≈ chain avg
Health inspection 3 of 52.8+0.2 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 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 5Grangeville Health & Rehabilitation of CascadiaGrangeville, 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
CASCADIA IDAHO OPERATIONS LLCOrganizationDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 01/01/2017
CASCADIA HC GROUP LLCOrganizationINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 06/05/2025
CASCADIA HEALTHCARE LLCOrganizationINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 01/01/2017
CASCADIA HOLDCO LLCOrganizationINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 06/05/2025
HAMMOND, OWENIndividualINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 01/01/2017
LAFORTE, STEPHENIndividualINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 06/05/2025
NELSON, TIMOTHYIndividualINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 06/05/2025
OROFINO 1204 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 SERVICES LLCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/13/2025
BOWEN, ANDREAIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 06/11/2023
SHOLAR, COLLEENIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 05/01/2023

CMS files one row per role, so the 23 rows in the source record cover these 12 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.

7 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.

$5.1M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
+2.9%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$821K
Related-party expense17% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 74%Medicare 13%Other / private 13%

About 74% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $821K paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 17% 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.

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

$331per resident / day
operating cost
$10,048per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$340per 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 135048. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-06-26, 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