Twin Falls Transitional Care of Cascadia

Location & what’s nearby

Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗

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

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.

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.

48.8% 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 68 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 72.7% 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 55 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: not reported. This home filed no therapist hours at all in its payroll data for this quarter. That is a gap in what it reported, and we do not read it as an absence of therapy — the homes that file nothing here include ones that discharged hundreds of Medicare rehab patients in the very same period, who plainly received therapy from someone. Because we cannot tell a home that under-reports from one that genuinely provides little, this home is left out of the comparison above rather than scored at zero. Ask it directly how many therapist hours a rehab resident gets, and on which days.

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.

Staffing

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 116 beds and averages 78.8 residents a day — about 68% occupied, or roughly 37 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 3.70 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.70 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.36 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 3.35 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.84 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.75 to 0.58 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 45% 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

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.

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.

33 citations, most serious first. The 15 most serious are shown; the remaining 18 are one tap away and print in full.

• Immediate jeopardy · J2019-04-01 · tag F0678 — failed to provide CPR when needed — isolated
  Provide basic life support, including CPR, prior to the arrival of emergency medical personnel , subject to physician orders and the resident’s advance directives.
  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, family and staff interviews, and policy review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the facility provided CPR per documented instructions and according to the resident's wishes for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #53) whose death record was reviewed. The facility failed to verify Resident #53's code status and initiate lifesaving interventions consistent with his code status, when staff found him unresponsive. The failure to initiate CPR may have contributed to Resident #53's death and placed the health and safety of the 22 other residents residing in the facility, with a code status of Full Code (resuscitate/initiate CPR), in Immediate Jeopardy. Findings include: The facility's Emergency Medical Response policy and procedure, dated [DATE], instructed staff to identify the patient's code status, evaluate the patient or resident, and initiate appropriate medical intervention. The facility failed to follow its policy. Resident #53 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple…

  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
• Actual harm · G2019-04-01 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolated
  Protect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
  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 1 of 1 resident (Resident #53) reviewed for death in the facility was provided CPR per his wishes documented on his POST form. The licensed staff neglected to verify Resident #53's code status when he did not have an apical pulse (heart beat) or respirations and neglected to initiate CPR per his documented wishes. The failure may have contributed to Resident #53's death and placed the other 22 residents residing in the facility with a code status of Full Code (initiate resuscitation) at risk of not receiving CPR per their wishes. Findings include: Resident #53 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including congestive heart failure (CHF), falls with closed head injury, and current use of anticoagulant medication (blood thinner). Resident #53's hospital admission History and Physical, dated [DATE] at 3:42 AM, documented he his code status was Full Code and was electronically signed by a Nurse…

  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 date of correction
• Actual harm · G2019-04-01 · 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 and family and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to initiate or conduct a thorough investigation of potential neglect for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #53) reviewed for death in the facility. When facility staff found Resident #53 unresponsive, CPR was not initiated, as directed in his POST form which documented his code status was Resuscitation/Full Code with aggressive interventions. The failure placed the other 52 residents at risk of not having their code status wishes honored if they were unable to communicate them. Findings include: Resident #53 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including congestive heart failure, falls with closed head injury, and current use of anticoagulant medication (blood thinner). Resident #53's hospital admission History and Physical, dated [DATE] at 3:42 AM, documented he his code status was Full Code and was electronically signed by a Nurse Practitioner. Resident #53's Initial Nursing Assessment, dated [DATE],…

  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 date of correction
• Actual harm · G2019-04-01 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolated
  Provide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
  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, record review, and policy review, it was determined the facility failed to prevent the development of avoidable pressure ulcers. This was true for 2 of 4 residents (#7 and #33) reviewed for pressure ulcers. Resident #33 was harmed when he developed an unstageable pressure ulcer to his left heel, sacrum, and a Stage II pressure ulcer to his left inner knee. Resident #7 was harmed when she developed a Stage II pressure ulcer to her right buttock. Findings include: The facility's Skin Integrity Management policy, revised 11/28/16, documented, The implementation of an individual patient's skin integrity management occurs within the care delivery process. Staff continually observes and monitors patients for changes and implements revisions to the plan of care as needed. The policy also included the following: * Identify patient's skin integrity status and need for prevention interventions or treatment modalities through review of all appropriate assessment information. * Develop…

  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
• Actual harm · G2019-04-01 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — isolated
  Provide safe, appropriate pain management for a resident who requires such services.
  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, policy review, and record review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents' pain levels were assessed and treated prior to wound care. This was true for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #33) reviewed for pain management. Resident #33 was harmed when he experienced increased pain during a dressing change and the facility did not identify and treat it. Findings include: The facility's Pain Management policy, dated 3/1/18, documented nursing staff to maintain the highest possible level of comfort for patients by providing a system to identify, assess, treat, and evaluate pain. An individualized care plan will be developed and address and treat underlying causes of pain and using specific strategies for preventing or minimizing different levels or sources of pain or pain related symptoms. Resident #33 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including a stroke with hemiplegia and hemiparesis (paralysis and weakness to one side of the body)…

  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 · Dcited before2025-06-12 · 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 record review and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to ensure a resident and their representative received assistance to exercise their right to formulate an Advance Directive. This was true for 1 of 20 Residents (Resident #7) whose records were reviewed for Advance Directives. This deficient practice created the potential for harm or adverse outcomes if the resident's wishes were not followed or documented regarding their advance care planning. Findings include: Resident #7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including Spotted Fever due to Rickettsia rickettssi (disease caused by the bite of a tick or mite) and diabetes. On 6/10/25 at 10:02 AM, during review of Resident #7's medical record a POST and a Letter of Guardianship was found. No documentation of Advance Directive and no documentation that the facility had offered to assist Resident #7 or resident guardian with formulating an Advance Directive. On 6/10/25 at 11:47 AM, CRN stated Resident #7 has a guardian…

  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 · Dcited before2025-06-12 · 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 record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the MDS assessment accurately reflected resident's status. This was true for 2 of 20 residents (#32 and #38) whose MDS assessments were reviewed. This deficient practice had the potential for negative outcomes if residents were not assessed and/or monitored due to inaccurate assessments. Findings include: 1. Resident #32 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including PTSD, major depressive disorder, and anxiety. Resident #32's PASRR level II dated 12/13/24, documented she had a diagnosis of PTSD (serious mental illness), ADD, and situational anxiety/depression. Resident #32's admission MDS assessment, dated 12/23/24, documented under question A1500, she was not considered by the state level II PASRR process to have a serious mental illness and/or intellectual disability or a related condition. Resident #32's admission MDS assessment dated [DATE], and her quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE],…

  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 before2025-06-12 · tag F0644 — isolated
  Coordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as 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 record review, policy review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to refer residents for further evaluation when residents were diagnosed with a major mental illness, intellectual disability, or a related condition. This was true for 1 of 8 residents (Resident #58) reviewed for PASARR Level II evaluations. This deficient practice had the potential to cause harm if resident's specialized services for mental health needs were not evaluated by an appropriate state-designated authority. Findings include: The facility's Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) policy dated 11/19/24, documented if a positive Level 1 screen, an in-depth evaluation (PASARR Level II screen) of the individual by the state-designated authority is conducted prior to admission to the facility. The state-designated authority determines whether the individual has a mental disorder (MD) or an intellectual disability (ID) or related condition. The state-designated authority determines the appropriate…

  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 · D2025-06-12 · 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 resubmit the PASRR level II for those residents with a 30 day exemption when their stay exceeded 30 days. This was true for 3 of 20 residents (#12, #38, and #63) reviewed for PASRR level II evaluations. This deficient practice had the potential to cause harm if resident's specialized services for mental health needs were not evaluated by an appropriate state-designated authority. Findings include. 1. Resident #12 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including depression, anxiety, and congestive heart failure. Resident #12's PASRR level II dated 8/5/24, documented the following: - Meets the criteria for hospital exemption - Has a known or suspected major mental illness - Physician has certified he will need less than 30 calendar days for services. - If the participant stays past 30 days from admission, the facility was to submit the most current MDS, Medical Doctors orders, social notes, and psych.…

  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 before2025-06-12 · 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, record review, and interviews, it was determined the facility failed to provide respiratory services as ordered by the physician and the facility failed to ensure adherence to infection control and prevention practices to provide a safe and sanitary environment when staff used opened oxygen supplies after it had fallen on the floor. This was true for 2 of 15 residents (Resident #63 and #41) whose records were reviewed for respiratory services. This failure created the potential for residents to experience increased fatigue, low oxygen levels and infection. Findings include: 1. Resident #63 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including Autonomic Nervous System disorder (conditions that disrupt the body's ability to regulate involuntary functions like heart rate, blood pressure, digestion, and temperature), Parkinson's Disease (a progressive neurodegenerative disorder that affects the brain, specifically the nerve cells that produce dopamine), and borderline…

  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 · D2025-06-12 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolated
  Provide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure controlled medications were tracked and kept secure from potential theft and/or diversion. This was true for 2 of 3 medication carts reviewed. This failure created the potential for undetected misuse and/or diversion of controlled medications and had the potential to affect all residents who received controlled medication in the facility. Findings include: On 6/8/25 at 3:42 PM, during 400 Hall medication cart audit, observed the narcotic accountability record, dated 6/4/25 to 6/8/25, with 2 licensed nurse signatures not documented. On 6/8/25 at 3:45 PM, LPN #2 stated two nurses should have signed the narcotic accountability record when they accepted the medication cart or released the medication cart. On 6/11/25 at 7:56 AM, during 100 Hall medication cart audit, observed the narcotic accountability record, dated 6/5/25 to 6/11/25, with 1 licensed nurse signature not documented. On 6/11/25 at 8:05 AM, LPN #3 stated two nurses should have signed the narcotic accountability record when they…

  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 · D2025-06-12 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolated
  Ensure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observation, record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the medication error rate was less than 5%. This was true for 2 medications (5.71%) which affected 1 of 6 residents (Resident #38) whose medication administrations were observed. This failed practice placed residents at risk of not receiving their prescribed medication or dosage of their medication. Findings include: The following was observed during the medication pass: a. Resident #38's physician order documented Calcium 600mg/Vitamin D 10 mcg oral tablet daily. On 6/11/25 at 8:17 AM, LPN #3 stated Resident #38 had been receiving Calcium 600mg/Vitamin D 10 mcg in chewable form and the facility did not have chewable tablets so she could not administer the medication. On 6/11/25 at 8:50 AM, CNO stated the facility did not have Calcium chewable tablets available to administer to Resident #38. b. Resident #38's physician order documented Lidocaine External patch 4% (Lidocaine) apply to left leg base topically one time a day for pain, on for 12 hours in AM and off at PM. On 6/11/25…

  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 · Dcited before2025-06-12 · 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

  Based on observations and staff interviews it was determined the facility failed to ensure medications were properly stored and not expired, and biologicals were labeled when opened. This was true for 1 of 1 medication storage room audited. This failure created the potential for residents to receive expired medications with decreased efficacy and use of expired biologicals. Findings include: 1. On 6/11/25 at 8:52 AM, observed the following in the medication storage room refrigerator: - one bottle of mouthwash opened with an expiration date of 4/17/25 - two bottles of omeprazole suspension with an expiration date of 4/17/25 On 6/11/25 at 8:53 AM, CNO stated the mouthwash and omeperazole suspension was expired and should have been removed from the refrigerator and had not been. 2. The following was observed for biologicals. On 6/11/25 at 8:54 AM, one set of glucose test solutions were not dated when opened. On 6/11/25 at 8:55 AM, CNO stated glucose test solution was not dated when opened and should have been.

  Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-06-12 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolated
  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, Idaho Food Code review, policy review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the food was stored in a safe and sanitary manner. These deficiencies had the potential to affect all 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: The Idaho Food Code, revised February 2021, stated, 3-501.17 Ready-to-Eat, Time/Temperature Control for Safety Food, Date Marking . refrigerated, ready-to-eat, time/temperature control for safety food prepared and held in a food establishment for more than 24 hours shall be clearly marked to indicate the date or day by which the food shall be consumed on the premises, sold, or discarded when held at a temperature of 5ºC (41ºF) or less for a maximum of 7 days. The day of preparation shall be counted as Day 1. The facility's Food and Supply Storage policy dated 11/28/17, documented for food products that are opened and not completely used or prepared at facility…

  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 · D2025-06-12 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolated
  Safeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
  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 accurate data was entered into a resident's medical record. This was true for 1 of 20 residents (Resident #51) whose medical records were reviewed. This deficient practice placed residents at risk when inaccurate medical data is entered into their medical records. Findings include: Resident #51 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE], and readmitted on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including chronic congestive heart failure (a long-term condition where the heart's pumping ability is weakened, leading to fluid buildup in the lungs and other parts of the body) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a group of lung diseases that cause long-term breathing problems). Resident #51's physicians' order dated 6/2/25, documented BIPAP with home settings with oxygen at 2 liters with humidification. On 6/10/25, observed in Resident #51's medical record the following SpO2 documentation: - 6/3/25 14:13 90.0% Oxygen via…

  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

“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.

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 →

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

CMS files one row per role, so the 19 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.

About 71% 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 $337K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.

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

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