Timberline Post Acute

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.

64.8% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 228 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 47.0% 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 100 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 0.58 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 87% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 11% 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.

Staffing

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 67 beds and averages 60.5 residents a day — about 90% occupied, or roughly 6 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. 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 4.68 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.44 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.25 is at or above 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 4.18 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.88 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.55 to 0.17 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 43% 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 fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. 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.

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

• Potential for harm · D2026-02-13 · tag F0604 — failed to not use physical restraints improperly — isolated
  Ensure that each resident is free from the use of physical restraints, unless needed for medical treatment.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to assess and correctly utilize a restraint for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#71) reviewed for elopement. This placed residents at risk for lack of freedom from physical restraints. Resident 71 was admitted to the facility in 1/2025 with diagnoses including respiratory failure and personality disorder.The 1/10/25 admission MDS revealed Resident 71 had a BIMS score of 12 (moderately cognitively intact) and poor safety awareness. A 6/16/25 revised Care Plan indicated Resident 71 had a Wander Guard (an alarm attached to a resident at risk for wandering) and was at risk for leaving the facility without notifying staff.Review of Resident 71's clinical record revealed no consent or evaluation for the use of her/his Wander Guard.A 6/17/25 Elopement Risk Evaluation indicated Resident 71 was a low risk for elopement. Resident 71 was allowed to go outside, showed no exit seeking behaviors, and a Wander Guard was placed on the resident to alert staff when she/he left the building since she/he was at risk for falls.The…

  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
• Potential for harm · D2026-02-13 · tag F0636 — isolated
  Assess the resident completely in a timely manner when first admitted, and then periodically, at least every 12 months.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to implement a care plan after a comprehensive assessment for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#7) reviewed for communication. This place residents at risk for ineffective communication. Findings include: Resident 7 was admitted to the facility in 12/2025 with a diagnosis including cerebral palsy (neurological disorder affecting movement and muscle coordination).The 12/12/25 admission MDS and Communication CAA revealed Resident 7 had a BIMS score of 15 (cognitively intact), received speech therapy in the last seven days, and staff were to provide simple, short instructions to improve the resident's understanding of words. Staff were to rephrase and elevate their voices to improve communication with the resident and a care plan for effective communication was needed. A 12/23/25 facility Communications Report revealed Staff 11 (SLP) indicated to avoid speaking down to Resident 7, take time to understand the resident, and repeat her/his spoken words to confirm understanding. A 12/29/25 revised Care Plan…

  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 · D2026-02-13 · 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 observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan for 2 of 4 sampled residents (#s 3 and 6) reviewed for pain and incontinence. This placed residents at risk for unmet needs. Findings include:1. Resident 3 was admitted to the facility in 1/2026 with diagnoses including stroke. The 1/22/26 admission MDS indicated Resident 3 had a BIMS score of 14 (cognitively intact), her/his upper and lower extremities were impaired on one side, and she/he was assessed with the ability to eat independently. The 2/8/26 and 2/10/26 Daily Skilled note revealed Resident 3 had right-sided weakness and was unable to move her/his fingers or lift her/his hand or arms. On 2/10/26 at 3:33 PM, Resident 3 was observed in her/his room when an unidentified staff with a menu entered the room and left a daily menu at the resident's bedside table for her/him to complete. Resident 3 called to the staff to return to assist with the menu since the resident was unable 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.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-02-13 · tag F0881 — failed to use antibiotics responsibly — isolated
  Implement a program that monitors antibiotic use.
  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, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure proper use of antibiotics for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#6) reviewed for UTIs. This placed residents at risk for drug resistant organisms. Findings include: Resident 6 admitted to the facility in 5/2025 with diagnoses including diabetes and muscle weakness. A 1/20/26 Physician Order instructed staff to administer ciprofloxacin 500 mg (antibiotic). No additional information was provided. On 1/22/26, laboratory results were obtained indicating Resident 6 did not have a urinary tract infection (UTI). A 1/25/26 progress note indicated clarification was requested for ciprofloxacin 500 mg twice daily. No follow up was documented. On 2/10/26 at 4:16 PM, Staff 2 (DNS) reviewed the laboratory results dated [DATE] and confirmed Resident 6 did not have an (UTI). Staff 2 further confirmed there was no clinical indication for the prescribed antibiotic and staff were expected to follow up.

  Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-12-09 · 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 interviews and record review it was determined the facility failed to identify, treat, and care plan for a pressure injury for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#1) reviewed for pressure injuries. This placed residents at risk for worsening pressure injuries. Findings include:Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including a right ankle fracture.CMS defines a Stage I Pressure Injury as an injury to intact skin that is characterized by non-blanchable redness (redness that does not fade when pressed on).CMS defines an Unstageable Pressure Injury as a pressure wound that cannot be staged due to slough/eschar (dead or dying tissue) covering the wound bed.The 9/11/25 admission Evaluation indicated on admission to the facility; Resident 1 had a soft mass on the middle of her/his back on the spine which appeared red and non-blanchable. There was no documentation found in the clinical record of orders implemented or of notification to the provider of the wound.A 9/12/25 care plan indicated…

  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 before2025-12-09 · 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 observations, interviews, and record review, it was determined the facility failed to follow infection control practices when providing wound care to 1 of 3 sampled residents (#3) reviewed for pressure injuries. This placed residents at risk for infection. Findings include:Resident 3 was admitted to the facility in 12/2023 with diagnoses including diabetes.On 10/8/25 at 10:25 AM, Staff 6 (LPN) was observed to don a gown, gloves, and a face mask before entering Resident 3's room. With gloved hands, Staff 6 cleaned a wound on Resident 3's right thumb. With the same gloves and without performing hand hygiene, Staff 6 placed a clean dressing on Resident 3's right thumb wound, cleaned a wound on Resident 3's left big toe and applied a clean dressing to the toe. Staff 6 removed her gloves and, without completing hand hygiene, donned a pair of clean gloves and applied a cream to Resident 3's knee. Staff 6 removed her gloves, left Resident 3's room, and then performed hand hygiene.On 10/8/25 at 10:54 AM, Staff 6 stated her normal process for wound care was to complete hand hygiene,…

  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 · Dcited before2024-09-27 · 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

  Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to follow physician orders for 1 of 5 residents (#1) reviewed for unnecessary medications. This placed residents at risk for adverse side effects of medications. Findings Include: Resident 1 was admitted to the facility in 8/2018 with diagnoses including diabetes. A review of Resident 1's Physician Orders revealed a 7/27/24 order for sumatriptan succinate (a medication used to treat migraines) 25 mg as needed for migraines daily, may repeat dose in two hours if the first dose was ineffective. A review of Resident 1's 9/1/24 through 9/25/24 MAR revealed on 9/20/24 Resident 1 was given sumatriptan succinate 25 mg at 2:46 PM with effective results and a second dose of sumatriptan succinate 25 mg was given on 9/20/24 at 11:04 PM with effective results. On 9/25/24 at 2:59 PM Staff 7 (RNCM) stated on 9/20/24 Resident 1 was given sumatriptan succinate 25 mg at 2:46 PM and 11:04 PM. Staff 7 stated the second dose of sumatriptan succinate 25 mg given at 11:04 PM was not given per Physician Orders, and Staff 7 stated…

  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 · D2024-09-27 · 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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

  Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to obtain oxygen orders for 1 of 2 sampled residents (#211) reviewed for respiratory care. This placed residents at risk for adverse side effects of oxygen use without orders. Findings include: Resident 211 was admitted to the facility in 9/2024 with diagnoses including acute respiratory failure. On 9/23/24 at 12:06 PM Resident 211 was observed using oxygen via nasal cannula at two liters per minute. On 9/25/24 at 8:46 AM Resident 211 was observed using oxygen via nasal cannula at two liters per minute. A 9/26/24 review of Resident 211's Physician Orders revealed no evidence of oxygen orders. On 9/26/24 at 12:32 PM Staff 7 (RNCM) acknowledged Resident 211 was using oxygen but did not have orders for oxygen.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2024-09-27 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolated
  Ensure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure pharmacy recommendations were addressed by the physician for 1 of 5 sampled residents (#33) reviewed for unnecessary medications. This placed residents at risk for adverse side effects of medications. Findings include: Resident 33 was admitted to the facility in 1/2024 with diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and sleep apnea. The 8/2024 pharmacy recommendation indicated Resident 33 had an order for fluticasone (a nasal spray to treat allergies or asthma), to be sprayed in both nostrils two times daily for congestion. The recommendation suggested changing the fluticasone spray to once daily for congestion. The physician assistant agreed to the change and signed the recommendation on 8/15/24. A review of Resident 33's 8/2024 and 9/2024 MARs revealed Resident 33 was administered fluticasone two times daily for congestion. On 9/27/24 at 12:39 PM Staff 7 (RNCM) reviewed the current order and pharmacy review and confirmed the facility did not act upon the pharmacist's recommendation.…

  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 · D2024-09-27 · 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

  Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to protect resident identifiable information for 3 of 3 sampled residents (#s 17, 22 and 32) reviewed for record management. This placed residents at risk for unauthorized use of their personal information. Findings include: 1. On 9/23/24 at 9:37 AM resident identifiable information including Resident 17 and 32's names and diet types was observed on a meal ticket inside a clear plastic garbage bag with no lid located on the side of a cart where dirty dishes were placed after a meal service. The cart was located next to the dining room. On 9/23/24 at 9:38 AM Staff 6 (CNA) was discarding food scraps into the clear plastic garbage bag where resident identifiable information was observed. Staff 6 confirmed Residents 17 and 32 were current residents at the facility. Staff 6 stated all resident meal tickets that included the resident's name were to be placed in the confidential shred bin. On 9/23/24 at 9:52 AM Staff 2 (DNS) confirmed Resident 17 and 32's meal tickets with resident identifiable…

  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 PACS GROUP — 274 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 11 rows in the source record cover these 9 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.

3 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.

This home reported $1.2M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 11% 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

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 OR