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

Cascade Manor

65 West 30th Avenue, Eugene, OR 97405 · Non profit - Corporation · 32 certified beds · (541) 342-5901 Medicare only — no Medicaid

Call the home — (541) 342-5901 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
2 actual-harm citations$10,033 in federal fines
Insights

The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.

In its favor
  • a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
  • a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
Worth asking about
  • it has 2 actual-harm citations
  • a high number of inspection citations overall (16) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
  • the CMS record shows $10,033 in federal fines (most recent 2024-02-23)

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

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

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

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★★★ 4/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
2864 Willamette St, Ste 600
Pharmacy
1515 Oak St · (888) 644-9352 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
135 E 29th Ave · (541) 343-6932 · Call to confirm hours
Park
2700 Hilyard St · (541) 682-5333 · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship

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

Quality measures — how residents actually fare

Overall quality measuresNot rated

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

Trend — is this home getting better or worse?

Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 2 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 with a urinary tract infection0.0%2.0%2.0%better
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms4.8%4.9%6.5%better
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.1%0.1%better
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury9.5%2.4%3.3%worse
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers17.0%5.8%4.7%worse
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication0.0%1.4%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine90.9%81.2%79.4%better

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.

0.96U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.28hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.61hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.07hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.96 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 96% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 5% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.

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

See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNFnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNFnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identifiednot 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 next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care settingnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF staynot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsenednot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalizationnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFsnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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

1.93
RN hours/ resident / day
1.80
LPN hours/ resident / day
4.58
Aide hours/ resident / day
8.31
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
1.15
RN hoursweekends
Total nursing turnover
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 32 beds and averages 9.2 residents a day — about 29% occupied, or roughly 23 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 8.31 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.93 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 4.58 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 7.56 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 8.61 on weekdays — 12% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 2.25 to 1.15 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

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

3
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2026-04-23)
3
at the previous standard inspection (2025-03-27)

Deficiencies are unchanged from the previous inspection. 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.

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

  • Actual harm · G2024-02-23 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolated
    Ensure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
    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 interview and record review it was determined facility staff failed to meet professional standards related to care and services for a feeding tube for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#165) reviewed for a feeding tube. Resident 165 required hospitalization and surgery for feeding tube replacement. Findings include: Resident 165 admitted to the facility in 2023 with diagnoses including dysphagia (difficulty swallowing) and a newly acquired feeding tube placement. On 5/8/23 a FRI was received which alleged on 5/6/23 Staff 12 (Former RNCM) provided enteral feeding through Resident 165's feeding tube, had difficulty with the feeding tube and cut off the port (opening to access the feeding tube) for easier administration of the feeding. Staff 12 indicated there was no equipment to care for the tube feeding and the present equipment was dirty. A purchase order indicated supplies for the feeding tube were delivered to the facility on 5/3/23. The FRI included the following: - On 5/7/23 Staff 6 (RNCM) indicated she…

    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
  • Actual harm · G2024-02-23 · tag F0693 — failed to provide proper feeding-tube care — isolated
    Ensure that feeding tubes are not used unless there is a medical reason and the resident agrees; and provide appropriate care for a resident with a feeding tube.
    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 interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure a resident received appropriate care and services related to a feeding tube for 1 of 1 unsampled resident (#165) reviewed for a feeding tube. Resident 165 required surgery for feeding tube replacement. Findings include: Resident 165 admitted to the facility in 2023 with diagnoses including dysphagia (difficulty swallowing) and a feeding tube. On 5/8/23 a FRI was received which alleged on 5/6/23 Staff 12 (Former RNCM) had difficulty with Resident 165's feeding tube while providing enteral feeding, and cut off the port (opening to access the feeding tube) for improved administration of the feeding. Staff 12 indicated there was no equipment to care for the tube feeding and the present equipment was dirty. A purchase order indicated supplies for the feeding tube were delivered to the facility on 5/3/23. On 5/8/23 Staff 16 (Former RN) indicated in report she was told Resident 165's feeding tube port was cut due to the syringes not…

    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 · D2026-04-23 · 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 notify the provider of abnormal vitals for 1 of 5 sampled residents (#2) reviewed for unnecessary medications. This placed residents at risk for adverse side effects to a low pulse. Findings include:Resident 2 was admitted to the facility in 3/2026 with diagnoses including heart failure and arterial fibrillation (an irregular heartbeat).A review of Resident 2's orders revealed a 3/7/26 order for amiodarone (a medication used to treat irregular heartbeat) 200 mg daily.A review of Resident 2's vital record revealed the following pulses:-3/7/26 59 beats per minute (BPM)-3/8/26 56 BPM-3/9/26 44 BPM and 55 BPM-3/10/26 47 BPM-3/11/26 59 BPM and 51 BPM-3/12/26 52 BPM-3/13/26 39 BPM-4/1/26 44 BPM-4/7/26 40 BPMA review of Resident 2's medical record revealed no evidence the provider was notified of the low pulses.On 4/14/26 Resident 2 had a pulse of 42 beats per minute and a blood pressure reading at 108/47, and an order was received to decrease the dose of amiodarone from 200 mg to 100 mg.On 4/22/26 at 2:28 PM…

    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 · D2026-04-23 · 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

    Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents did not receive unnecessary medications for 1 of 5 sampled residents (#2) reviewed for unnecessary medications. This placed residents at risk for adverse side effects to receiving medications unnecessarily. Findings include:Resident 2 was admitted to the facility in 3/2026 with diagnoses including heart failure and arterial fibrillation (an irregular heartbeat).A review of orders revealed a 3/8/26 order for spironolactone (a medication that helps remove excess water and salt from the body) hold if the systolic blood pressure (SBP, the top number in a blood pressure reading) was less than 100.A 3/27/26 progress note indicated Resident 2's provider recommended checking Resident 2's orthostatic blood pressure (checking the blood pressure after changing positions).A review of Resident 2's medical record revealed no evidence of orthostatic blood pressures being completed.A review of Resident 2's blood pressures revealed Resident 2 received spironolactone when her/his blood pressure was 98/58 on…

    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 · D2026-04-23 · tag F0881 — failed to use antibiotics responsibly — isolated
    Implement a program that monitors antibiotic use.
    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 track infection organisms for 1 of 5 sampled residents (#2) reviewed for unnecessary medications. This placed residents at risk for antibiotic resistance. Finding include: Resident 2 was admitted to the facility in 3/2026 with diagnoses including a urinary tract infection (UTI) and heart failure.A 3/19/26 progress note indicated Resident 2 had three UTIs this year.A 3/27/26 progress note indicated Resident 2 had frequent UTIs.A 4/3/26 progress note indicated Resident 2 had increased confusion, frequent urination, and pelvic pain. An order for a urinary analysis with culture and sensitivity was received, and Resident 2 was started on antibiotics.A 4/5/26 urinary culture indicated skin flora (harmless bacteria on the skin).A 4/8/26 progress note indicated Resident 2's provider was requesting the final urinary culture and sensitivity.A 4/9/26 progress note indicated Resident 2's provider was requesting the final urinary culture and sensitivity.A review of Resident 2's medical record revealed no evidence 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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-03-27 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespread
    Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure kitchen staff wore appropriate beard restraints during meal preparation and failed to ensure food was stored appropriately and discarded in a timely manner for 1 of 1 facility kitchen reviewed for sanitation and food storage. This placed residents at risk for unsanitary foods and food-borne illness. Findings include: 1. Review of the US FDA Food Code 2022 revealed: -Food employees shall wear hair restraints such as hats, hair coverings or nets, beard restraints, and clothing that covers body hair, that are designed and worn to effectively keep their hair from contacting exposed food. On 3/25/25 at 12:20 PM a concurrent interview with Staff 5 (Dietary Manager) and observation of the meal preparation occurred. Staff 7 (Cook) had facial hair and was observed preparing food without a beard restraint in place. Staff 5 stated the dietary staff only were required to wear a beard restraint if the beard was long and unkempt. On 3/26/25 at 1:00 PM Staff 5 stated she reviewed the food code and…

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

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-03-27 · 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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

    Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to care plan for hospice care for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#3) reviewed for hospice care. This placed residents at risk for unmet end of life needs. Findings include: Resident 3 was admitted to the facility in 1/2023 with diagnoses including cardiac heart failure. A review of the medical record revealed Resident 3 was admitted to hospice on 1/24/23. A review of the care plan revealed no evidence Resident 3 was care planned for hospice care. On 3/25/25 at 3:17 PM Staff RCM (RNCM) stated Resident 3 was admitted to hospice on 1/24/25. Staff RCM stated when a resident was placed on hospice the resident should be care planned for hospice care. Staff RCM acknowledged Resident 3 had no care plan for hospice care.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-03-27 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
    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 interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure care planned interventions to reduce the risk of injury from falls were in place for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#2) reviewed for accidents. This placed residents at risk for injury. Findings include: Resident 2 admitted to the facility in 2021 with diagnoses including Cauda Equina Syndrome (neurological condition). Resident 2's 12/1/24 care plan directed staff to encourage her/him to use her/his call light for assistance, to keep the call light in reach and keep the bed in the low position. A 12/22/24 progress note revealed Staff 4 (LPN) documented on 12/21/24 at 10:55 PM Resident 2 was heard yelling and staff found her/him on the fall mat, on the ground, next to her/his bed. Resident 2 told staff, I was looking for my call light and fell out of bed. Staff 4 inspected Resident 2's room and the call light was connected to the wall, but was not in reach of the resident. Resident 2's 12/30/24 fall investigation summary revealed Staff…

    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 · Past Non-Compliance
  • Potential for harm · Fcited before2024-02-23 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespread
    Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure proper handwashing practices were in place and food was prepared and stored to meet food safety standards for 1 of 1 kitchen. This placed residents at risk for foodborne illness. Findings include: An undated Anytime Menu for breakfast indicated eggs were available poached, soft boiled, fried or scrambled for residents. An undated handwritten meal service count provided on 2/22/24 at 6:00 PM by Staff 7 (Certified Dietary Manager) indicated undercooked eggs were served 49 times to residents during the last 35 days. On 2/19/24 at 12:25 PM no pasteurized (partial sterilization involving heat) eggs were observed in the kitchen. On 2/19/24 at 12:38 PM two 20-quart containers that were approximately 18 inches deep of warm soup were observed on the counter in the kitchen. The soup containers were uncovered with a plastic container of ice partially immersed into the contents to promote cooling. Staff 10 (Cook) stated the facility had no practice to verify the temperatures of foods that cooled 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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-02-23 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — pattern
    Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
    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 maintain water temperatures for 3 of 3 resident rooms (#s 20, 21, and 31) reviewed for accident hazards. This placed residents at risk for injury. Findings include: Industry standards and best practices endorse water temperatures not to exceed 120 degrees F. On 2/19/24 at 3:40 PM, 2/19/24 at 3:50 PM and 2/20/24 at 8:30 AM the hot water was assessed in resident rooms [ROOM NUMBER]. On 2/20/24 at 8:31 AM the surveyor checked the temperature of the water in the visitation room and the thermometer indicated the water was 122 degrees F. On 2/21/24 at 8:11 AM Staff 13 (Maintenance Supervisor) used a thermometer to measure the water temperature in resident room [ROOM NUMBER]. The thermometer indicated the water was 135 degrees F. On 2/21/24 at 8:12 AM Staff 13 used a thermometer to measure the water temperature in resident room [ROOM NUMBER]. The thermometer indicated the water was 135 degrees F. Both residents in resident room…

    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 · E2024-02-23 · tag F0727 — failed to provide required RN coverage — pattern
    Have a registered nurse on duty 8 hours a day; and select a registered nurse to be the director of nurses on a full time basis.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure the facility was staffed to include the services of a RN at least eight consecutive hours per day seven days per week for 13 of 36 days reviewed. This placed residents at risk for lack of comprehensive assessments. Findings include: Review of the Direct Care Staff Daily Reports identified on the payroll based journal report, first quarter 2023, for no RN and from 1/19/24 through 2/18/24 revealed there were no RNs scheduled during a 24 hour period on 2/4/23 (Saturday), 2/5/23 (Sunday), 2/18/23 (Saturday), 2/19/23 (Sunday), 3/4/23 (Saturday), 3/5/23 (Sunday), 1/21/24 (Sunday), 1/26/24 (Friday), 2/3/24 (Saturday), 2/9/24 (Friday), 2/13/24 (Tuesday), 2/17/24 (Saturday), and 2/18/24 (Sunday). On 2/20/24 at 1:57 PM Staff 1 (Administrator) acknowledged there were multiple days the facility did not have a RN scheduled to provide direct care and the facility did not have a waiver. Staff 1 stated the DNS or the RNCM was usually available during the week and available by phone if needed on the weekend. 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.

    Nursing and Physician Services Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2024-02-23 · tag F0825 — pattern
    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

    Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to implement a physician's plan for therapy for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#9) reviewed for rehabilitation and therapy. This placed residents at risk for lack of therapy interventions. Findings include: Resident 9 admitted to the facility in 2023 with diagnoses including chronic heart disease and depression. A 12/22/23 revised care plan indicated Resident 9 had a problem with shortness of breath and coughing due to suspected aspiration (food or liquid in a person's airway) pneumonia. A 12/22/23 physician progress note indicated during rounds on 12/6/23 Resident 9 was observed to cough after eating and now required antibiotics for pneumonia. A 1/3/24 Encounter Nursing Home Visit revealed a previous speech consult was not completed as anticipated, Staff 15 (Nurse Practioner) spoke to a nurse and Resident 9 was to receive a bedside swallow evaluation. On 1/4/24 the plan was signed and acknowledged by three staff including Staff 3 (LPN). A 1/17/24 Encounter Nursing Home Visit revealed a swallow evaluation was…

    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 · E2024-02-23 · tag F0867 — failed to act on quality-improvement findings — pattern
    Set up an ongoing quality assessment and assurance group to review quality deficiencies and develop corrective plans of action.
    What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

    Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to systematically analyze data and implement plans of action to correct identified deficiencies related to water temperatures for 12 of 12 resident rooms reviewed for accident hazards. Findings include: On 2/21/23 at 8:12 AM Staff 13 (Maintenance Supervisor) stated five rooms a day were monitored for water temperatures. Staff 13 added he believed Staff 14 (Director of Facility Services) reviewed the temperature logs. On 2/21/24 at 9:14 AM Staff 14 stated the custodians performed water temperature monitoring. Staff 14 added she participated in QAPI meetings but was unsure of expectations for reporting data and the water temperatures were not discussed. On 2/22/24 at 5:59 PM Staff 1 (Administrator) was asked about the QAPI process. Staff 1 stated during her first QAPI meeting, she identified QAPI was an area they needed to improve. Refer to F689

    Administration Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-02-23 · 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

    Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to address advance directives for 2 of 2 sampled residents (#s 7 and 9) reviewed for advanced directives. This placed residents at risk for healthcare decisions to be in conflict with resident wishes. Findings include: 1. Resident 7 admitted to the facility in 2022 with diagnoses including stroke and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. A 9/20/22 Skilled Nursing Facility admission Agreement for CCRC (Continuing Care Retirement Community) Residents indicated Resident 7 had an Advance Directive. Resident 7's clinical record revealed no Advance Directive. On 2/22/24 at 4:28 PM Staff 5 (Health Services Coordinator) stated because Resident 7 had a POLST (Physician Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment) in her/his file she did not notify Staff 4 (Social Services Director) to ensure follow-up communication with Resident 7 regarding her/his Advance Directive took place. Staff 5 acknowledged a follow-up conversation with Resident 7 regarding her/his Advance Directive was necessary. 2. Resident 9 readmitted to 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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-02-23 · tag F0582 — isolated
    Give residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
    What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

    Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide Notices of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) for 1 of 2 sampled residents (#115) reviewed for liability and appeal notices. This placed residents at risk for lack of appeal information. Findings include: Resident 115 admitted to the facility in 2023 with diagnoses including cancer and convulsions. a. A NOMNC form indicated the last covered day was 12/22/23. The form was signed by Resident 115 on 12/28/23. On 2/22/24 at 10:21 AM Staff 1 (Administrator) stated she did not know why the notice was signed late. b. A NOMNC form indicated the last covered day was 1/12/24 for Resident 115's readmission. There was no evidence in the clinical record the NOMNC form was presented to Resident 115 prior to the end of Medicare coverage. On 2/22/24 at 10:21 AM Staff 1 (Administrator) stated she could not locate a second NOMNC form for Resident 115.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-02-23 · 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 interview it was determined the facility failed to follow infection control standards for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#3) reviewed for transmission based precautions (TBP). This placed residents at risk for exposure to infections. Findings include: Resident 3 admitted to the facility in 2021 with diagnoses including arthritis and low back problems. The facility indicated Resident 3 was on contact precautions (required the use of gloves and a gown) for a wound infection. There was no signage at the Resident's room or PPE supplies which indicated contact precautions were in place for Resident 3. On 2/19/24 at 4:19 PM Staff 11 (RN) was asked about wound care and TBP. Staff 11 stated wound care usually occurred on day shift but she occasionally had to perform a dressing change if the dressing came off. Staff 11 indicated she only wore gloves for the dressing change. On 2/19/24 at 4:34 AM Staff 6 (RNCM) stated there was no signage posted because the nurses performed wound care and they knew Resident 3 was on contact precautions. On 2/20/24 at 8:18 AM Staff 3 (LPN)…

    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

“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

$10,033 in federal fines across 1 penalty.

  • $10,033 — penalty dated 2024-02-23

Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to PACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES — 10 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 4 of 54.6-0.6 vs chain
Health inspection 4 of 54.3-0.3 vs chain
Staffing 4 of 54.7-0.7 vs chain
The other 9 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.6★, per CMS)

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
DEAN, HANNAHIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICERsince 10/01/2023
HIRST, DONALDIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 10/01/2019
VANVACTOR, WILLIAMIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICERsince 07/01/2011
SORENSON, KIMBERLYIndividualCORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 07/10/2023
FLORES, ELIZABETHIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 10/01/2023
KIERNAN, JANETIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 07/16/2023
SABATINI, ANTHONYIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 10/17/2024
PACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES INCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 03/04/2026

CMS files one row per role, so the 15 rows in the source record cover these 8 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.

1 organizational owner 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.

$12.4M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-19.5%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$792K
Related-party expense5% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 0%Medicare 5%Other / private 95%

This home reported $792K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.

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

Cost & finances

$1,801per resident / day
operating cost
$54,745per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$1,508per 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 OR

Paying with Medicaid

CMS lists this home as Medicare-certified only — it is not Medicaid-certified, so it generally cannot accept Medicaid as payment for a long-term stay. That makes it one of roughly 545 homes nationally where a Medicaid-funded placement is not an option. If you expect to rely on Medicaid, ask the home directly before you tour, and see the Oregon Medicaid page for homes that do.

Typical monthly cost in Oregon
$16,760/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$18,448/mo
Nursing home (private)
$6,875/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 385276. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-04-23, 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