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

Avamere Rehabilitation Of Clackamas

220 E. Hereford, Gladstone, OR 97027 · For profit - Corporation · 87 certified beds · (503) 656-0393 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Behavioral-health or dementia-care citation — no harm found (F0744)2 immediate-jeopardy citations$175,773 in federal fines
Insights

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

In its favor
  • a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
  • a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
Worth asking about
  • inspectors cited 2 immediate-jeopardy problems — the most serious level
  • 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 $175,773 in federal fines (most recent 2024-09-24)
  • its payroll-based staffing score sits well above its independent inspection score

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 3 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 5 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 4 of 5

Worth a closer look. This home's staffing rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the staffing score rests on the facility's own payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★★★ 4/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
1105 Portland Ave Ste 2 · (503) 655-2404 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
Walgreens0.8 mi
20100 McLoughlin Blvd · (503) 722-0868 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
Safeway0.4 mi
95 82nd Dr · (503) 723-2680 · Call to confirm hours
Park
450 E Exeter St · (503) 557-2769 · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship
305 E Dartmouth St · (503) 656-3394

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

Quality measures — how residents actually fare

Overall quality measures 4 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 2 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 5 of 5

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

Trend — is this home getting better or worse?

Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 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 whose need for help with daily activities increased16.8%14.9%15.4%typical
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight12.5%4.7%5.4%worse
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.0%1.4%0.9%better
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection9.0%2.0%2.0%worse
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms5.8%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 injury0.0%2.4%3.3%check this — see note marked star below the table
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened27.4%20.6%16.1%worse
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication20.5%12.4%18.9%typical
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine88.9%95.2%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers5.9%5.8%4.7%worse
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control16.8%21.8%21.2%better
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table13.5%13.9%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication1.2%1.4%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine83.8%81.2%79.4%typical
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission13.1%21.4%22.6%better
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit5.9%16.1%12.0%better

* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.

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

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

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

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

57.6% 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 97 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

57.6%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
9.9%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
57.6%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.31U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.15hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.13hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.03hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 57.6% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 33 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 0.31 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 51% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 43% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.

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

See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF57.6%CMS range 49.0–68.351.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF9.9%CMS range 6.4–15.810.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge57.6%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge54.5%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge51.5%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified97.8%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care settingnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge97.4%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay0.0%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened0.0%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization6.9%CMS range 4.0–12.07.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs0.681.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS makes no comparison for this measure

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

Staffing

0.97
RN hours/ resident / day
0.63
LPN hours/ resident / day
3.55
Aide hours/ resident / day
5.15
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.72
RN hoursweekends
47.5%
Total nursing turnover
22.2%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 87 beds and averages 43.0 residents a day — about 49% occupied, or roughly 44 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 5.15 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.97 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.55 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 4.57 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.38 on weekdays — 15% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.07 to 0.72 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 48% 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

4
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2025-12-04)
4
at the previous standard inspection (2024-07-19)

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.

  • Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2024-09-24 · 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

    Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to follow care plan interventions related to elopement for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#32) reviewed for elopement. This failure, determined to be an Immediate Jeopardy situation, placed all residents at risk for an unsafe elopement and injury. Findings include: The facility's revised 3/2019 Wandering and Elopement policy states the facility will identify residents who are at risk of unsafe wandering and strive to prevent harm while maintaining the least restrictive environment for residents. The facility's revised 7/18/24 Avamere Living-Code Pink Guidelines, an Elopement, Exit seeking, Wandering Assessment, stated the facility will complete the Code Pink Documentation tool when the resident is identified as at risk for elopement, exit seeking or wandering. Resident 32 admitted to the facility in 3/2024, with diagnoses including dementia and congestive heart failure. Resident 32's 6/19/24 Care Plan indicated Resident 32 may leave facility premises only if accompanied by a responsible party for…

    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
  • Immediate jeopardy · Kcited before2024-07-19 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — pattern
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    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 the community use CBG glucometer was properly cleaned and sanitized between resident use for 1 of 1 sampled resident (# 299) reviewed during CBG checks. This failure, determined to be an Immediate Jeopardy situation, placed all residents who required CBG checks at significant risk for bloodborne illness. Findings include: The Evencare G2 blood glucose monitoring system manufacturer instructions indicated to disinfect the meter with EPA-registered wipes. The 9/2014 facility policy for Blood Sampling Capillary (Finger Sticks) indicated to follow the manufacturer's instructions. On 7/17/24 at 11:29 AM Staff 3 was observed to obtain a CBG for Resident 299. Staff 3 exited the room and cleaned the glucometer with alcohol wipes. Staff 3 stated she primarily used alcohol wipes to clean the glucometer. Staff 3 then started to proceed down the hall to complete a CBG for Resident 296 using the same glucometer. The State…

    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 before2025-12-04 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolated
    Honor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide a clean and comfortable homelike environment for 1 of 2 halls reviewed for environment. This placed residents at risk for lessened quality of life. Findings include: On 9/29/25 through 10/1/25 from 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM, resident rooms one, two and four in the [NAME] Hall were observed to be used for storage of new furniture and past resident belongings. Observations of the three rooms included:-Five mattresses stacked on top of an unoccupied bed. The right side of the room was used for storage of a metal rack, two floor mats, a knee wedge, hangers, bath basin, gown, a bag of tortillas and four side tables. On the floor, a drawer from unknown origin was left on the floor and a yellow bath basin was placed on top.-Six mattresses stacked on top of an unoccupied bed. On top of the mattress, several blue blankets were placed on top of the mattresses. A sign above an unoccupied bed stated, emergency overflow bed only.-Three floor mats on top of an empty bed. A blue blanket was placed on top of…

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

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-12-04 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolated
    Provide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
    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 ensure dependent residents received required assistance with ADLs for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#5) reviewed for ADLs. This placed residents at risk for lack of personal hygiene. Findings include:Resident 5 was admitted to the facility in 8/2025 with diagnoses including stroke and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing).Resident 5's Quarterly MDS dated [DATE] indicated the resident was dependent on staff for personal hygiene and grooming.Resident 5's care plan dated 8/28/25 indicated the resident required total assistance with personal hygiene. Resident 5 was observed on 9/29/25 at 1:11 PM, 9/30/25 at 12:59 PM and on 12/4/25 at 11:53 AM with a significant amount of visible facial hair.On 9/30/25 at 1:10 PM Resident 5 stated she/he did not want to have facial hair and wanted staff to take care of her/his facial hair. Resident 5 stated she/he relied on staff to shave unwanted facial hair.On 10/1/25 at 12:07, Staff 10 (CNA) 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 · Dcited before2025-12-04 · 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

    Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to implement care plan interventions to prevent an injury during toileting for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#60) reviewed for falls. This placed residents at risk for injury during transfers and inadequate ADL assistance. Findings include:Resident 60 admitted to the facility in 5/2025 with diagnoses including stroke with left sided weakness.A review of Resident 60's care plan dated 4/29/25 revealed she/he required assistance from two staff members for all transfers and toileting due to high fall risk and multiple falls since admission.A facility investigation created and signed by Staff 2 (DNS) on 5/13/25 indicated Staff 7 (Former NA) transferred Resident 60 to the toilet. Staff 7 attempted to change Resident 60's brief while the resident was seated on the toilet and the resident jerked suddenly which caused the resident to hit her/his head on the mobility bar along the wall, resulting in a large bump on the side of the resident's head.On 12/4/25 at 11:47 AM Staff 2 confirmed Staff 7 did not follow Resident 60's…

    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 before2025-12-04 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to implement appropriate contact precautions and properly store wound care supplies for 1 of 1 resident (#24) reviewed for hospice. This placed residents at risk for the spread of infection. Findings include:The Center for Disease Control's (CDC) 4/3/24 website, section titled, Transmission Based Precautions, specified Contact Precautions are the second tier of basic infection control and are to be used in addition to Standard Precautions for patients who may be infected or colonized with certain infectious agents for which additional precautions are needed to prevent infection transmission. Use personal protective equipment (PPE) appropriately, including gloves and gown. Wear a gown and gloves for all interactions that may involve contact with the patient or the patient's environment. Donning PPE upon room entry and properly discarding before exiting the patient room is done to contain pathogens.The facility's…

    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 · Ecited before2024-07-19 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — pattern
    Honor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation and interview the facility failed to provide a comfortable and homelike environment for 1 of 1 facility reviewed for physical environment. This placed residents at risk for a lessened quality of life. Findings include: The facility's 2021 Homelike Environment Policy revealed residents were provided with a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment. Comfortable and adequate lighting was provided in all areas of the facility. Resident 24 admitted to the facility in 2019 with diagnoses including hypertension (high blood pressure) and depression. Resident 24's 4/21/24 Annual MDS indication she/he was cognitively intact. On 7/16/24 at 9:24 AM Resident 24 stated she/he was going to an activity in the dining room where the lighting was bad, and her/his vision was not so great so she/he sat by the window or the doors to see better. On 7/16/24 at 3:40 PM Resident 24 stated the lights in the dining room could be brighter because when residents were in activities in the dining room, other residents would ask if the lights could be turned on, but the lights were…

    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 · E2024-07-19 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — pattern
    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 observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure staff adhered to professional standards related to disinfection of common use glucometers for 1 of 2 licensed nurses (Staff #3) reviewed for infection control and medication administration. This placed residents at significant risk for bloodborne illness. Findings include: Per OAR [PHONE NUMBER] Scope of Practice Standards for All Licensed Nurses (1) Standards related to the licensee's responsibility for safe nursing practice. The licensee shall: (A) Adhere to professional practice and performance standards; Per OAR [PHONE NUMBER] Conduct Derogatory to the Standards of Nursing Defined: Conduct that adversely affects the health, safety, and welfare of the public, fails to conform to legal nursing standards, or fails to conform to accepted standards of the nursing profession, is conduct derogatory to the standards of nursing. Such conduct includes, but is not limited to: (2) Conduct related to achieving 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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-07-19 · tag F0744 — failed to care for residents with dementia — isolated
    Provide the appropriate treatment and services to a resident who displays or is diagnosed with dementia.
    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 resident-centered care plan interventions to ensure residents with dementia maintained their highest practicable level of well-being for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#18) reviewed for dementia. This placed residents at risk for a lack of psychosocial well-being and increased behaviors. Findings include: The facility's revised 2018 Dementia - Clinical Protocol revealed for individuals with confirmed dementia, the IDT (Inter-Disciplinary Team) would identify a resident-centered care plan to maximize their remaining function and quality of life. Resident 18 admitted to the facility in 2020 with diagnoses including dementia with agitation and depression. Resident 18's 8/21/23 Annual MDS indicated behaviors including rejection of care, combative behavior and agitation. Resident 18's 5/21/24 Quarterly MDS assessed her/him as severely cognitively impaired. Review of Resident 18's 7/18/24 behavioral care plan identified her/him as confrontational, rude, demanding, suspicious, manipulative and anxious. 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-06-20 · 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

    Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to re-evaluate elopement risks and revise care plan interventions to prevent repeated elopements for 1 of 1 sample residents (#1) reviewed for elopement. This placed residents at risk for an unsafe elopement and injury. Findings include: Resident 1 admitted to the facility in 3/2024, with diagnosis including dementia and Type 2 diabetes. Resident 1's 3/16/24 Elopement Assessment identified she/he was a moderate risk for elopement. Resident 1's 4/15/24 Care Plan indicated the resident presented as a high risk for wandering and elopement with interventions to implement a Code Pink protocol. Code Pink was defined as a medical emergency for residents who have wandered away from the facility and was at risk of harm and/or protecting themselves. Resident 1 was also revealed to be a significant fall risk due to cognitive impairment related to dementia. No additional interventions were identified. A 4/24/24 Facility Incident Reported revealed Resident 1 had an unwitnessed exit from the 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-05-05 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — pattern
    Honor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation and interview it was determined the facility failed to ensure resident rooms, bathrooms and linen supplies were maintained for 2 of 2 halls reviewed for environment. This placed residents at risk for lessened quality of life. Findings include: 1. A 5/3/23 at 10:06 AM observation of room [ROOM NUMBER] and bathroom revealed duct tape on the floor under the sink and across the toilet threshold. The grout around the toilet was uneven and patchy, there were tiles on the floor and wall in the shower stall that were cracked and broken. The dry wall leading toward the bathroom was cracked near the ceiling and the frame around the bathroom door was separated. There was a gap between the wall and ceiling along three of the bathroom walls (except the window wall). The exhaust vent did not turn on when tested. The resident in room [ROOM NUMBER] stated she/he used that bathroom. A 5/1/23 at 11:49 AM observation of the bathroom between rooms [ROOM NUMBERS] revealed the linoleum around the toilet 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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2023-05-05 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — pattern
    Ensure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
    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 provide palatable meals for 2 of 2 sampled residents (#s 12 and 30) reviewed for food quality. This placed residents at risk for impaired nutrition. Findings include: 1. Resident 12 was admitted to the facility in 2023 with diagnoses including pneumonia, dysphagia (difficulty swallowing) and malnutrition. Resident 12's 4/24/23 Care Plan indicated the resident had altered nutrition related to diagnoses of malnutrition and dysphagia. Resident 12's 4/26/23 ordered diet was a regular diet with minced and moist texture. A Registered Dietitian assessment dated [DATE] indicated the resident had an underweight BMI (body mass index). On 5/1/23 at 1:06 PM Resident 12 reported the texture, preparation and appearance of the food was not good. The resident stated the meal served at lunch was minced to death and she/he was not able to identify what it was. On 5/4/23 at 12:15 PM surveyors sampled two meals (regular and minced/moist)…

    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 · D2023-05-05 · 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

    Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure oxygen filters were cleaned for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#4) reviewed for respiratory care. This placed residents at risk for lack of respiratory care. Findings include: The facility's 2001 policy related to respiratory support indicated washable filters were to be rinsed under running water once a week to remove dust and debris. Resident 4 admitted to the facility in 2020 with diagnoses including palliative care. A physician order dated 2/10/23 indicated Resident 4 was to have 0-2 liters of supplemental oxygen PRN to maintain saturation of more than 88 percent. A 4/24/23 hospice note indicated Resident 4 used 2 liters of oxygen continuously. Review of the 4/2023 MAR indicate Resident 4 received 2 liters of oxygen routinely. On 5/1/23 at 11:17 AM Resident 4 was observed to have oxygen in place. Resident 4 stated she/he used oxygen all the time. The oxygen filter was observed to have a thick layer of dust covering the entire filter. On 5/2/23 at 12:47 PM Staff 2 (DNS) stated night shift…

    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 · D2023-05-05 · 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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

    Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to address pharmacy recommendations for 1 of 5 sampled residents (#24) reviewed for medications. This placed residents at risk for adverse medication side effects. Findings include: Resident 24 admitted to the facility in 2022 with diagnoses including depressive disorder. The 3/3/23 pharmacy recommendation indicated the following: -Resident 24 was taking Lexapro (antidepressant medication) 7.5 mg for depression and was due for a gradual dose reduction (GDR) assessment; The pharmacy recommendation was not signed by the provider until 4/27/23 (55 days later) and indicated no change to Resident 24's Lexapro. On 5/3/23 at 2:03 PM at Staff 2 (DNS) acknowledged the facility did not follow up with the pharmacy recommendation timely.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-05-05 · 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 withhold bowel medication as indicated for 2 of 5 sampled residents (#s 3 and 24) reviewed for medication. This placed residents at risk for adverse side effects of bowel medication. Findings include: 1. Resident 3 was admitted to the facility in 2019 with diagnoses including stroke. Resident 3's 5/4/23 physician's orders included the following medications: - Miralax (laxative) BID for bowel care. - Senna (laxative) BID for bowel care. Resident 3's Bowel elimination records from 4/4/23 through 4/30/23 revealed she/he had loose stools or diarrhea documented on 17 of 30 days for a total of 24 occurrences. Resident 3's 4/2023 MAR indicated: - The resident's scheduled Miralax was administered routinely every day from 4/1/23 through 4/30/23. - The resident's scheduled senna was administered routinely every day from 4/1/23 through 4/30/23 except for the refusal of two doses. Resident 3's 4/19/23 Care Plan indicated the resident had loose stools and diarrhea with a goal of reduced episodes of diarrhea. On 5/4/23…

    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 · D2023-05-05 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — isolated
    Dispose of garbage and refuse properly.
    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 ensure garbage storage areas were maintained in a sanitary manner to prevent the presence and feeding of pests, and to ensure garbage storage area dumpsters were covered condition for 1 of 1 facility storage areas reviewed for sanitary garbage storage. This placed residents at risk for presence of pests. Findings include: On 5/1/23 at 9:09 AM during the initial kitchen tour including the outside garbage storage area Staff 9 (Cook) stated the trash compacter was broken for over a year and the facility brought in a large dumpster. A large, approximately 20 feet by 10 feet uncovered dumpster with two hinged doors at the front was observed at back side of the building. On 5/2/23 at 12:58 PM one of the dumpster doors opened was observed open; trash bags and a pair of used gloves dangled off the edge of the dumpster. On 5/3/23 at 10:12 AM one of the the dumpster doors was observed open and one garbage bag hung over the front edge; two black crows were observed by the dumpster opening. On 5/3/23 at 10:25 AM…

    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

“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

$175,773 in federal fines across 3 penalties.

  • $10,036 — penalty dated 2024-09-24
  • $30,976 — penalty dated 2024-06-20
  • $134,761 — penalty dated 2023-11-14

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 AVAMERE — 27 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 4 of 53.0+1.0 vs chain
Health inspection 3 of 52.6+0.4 vs chain
Staffing 5 of 54.0+1.0 vs chain
Quality measures 4 of 53.8+0.2 vs chain
The other 26 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.0★, per CMS)
1 of 5Avamere Rehabilitation Of EugeneEugene, OR 1 of 5Avamere Rehabilitation Of LebanonLebanon, OR 2 of 5Avamere At Pacific RidgeTacoma, WA 2 of 5Avamere Health Services Of Rogue ValleyMedford, OR 2 of 5Avamere Olympic Rehabilitation Of SequimSequim, WA 2 of 5Avamere Rehabilitation At Park WestSeattle, WA 2 of 5Avamere Rehabilitation Of Coos BayCoos Bay, OR 2 of 5Avamere Rehabilitation Of IssaquahIssaquah, WA 2 of 5Avamere Rehabilitation Of Oregon CityOregon City, OR 2 of 5Avamere Rehabilitation Of ShorelineSeattle, WA 2 of 5Avamere Rehabilitation of BurienBurien, WA 2 of 5Avamere Riverpark Of EugeneEugene, OR 2 of 5Avamere Transitional Care At SunnysideSalem, OR 3 of 5Avamere Rehabilitation Of HillsboroHillsboro, OR 4 of 5Avamere Court At KeizerKeizer, OR 4 of 5Avamere Crestview Of PortlandPortland, OR 4 of 5Avamere Rehabilitation At RidgemontPort Orchard, WA 4 of 5Avamere Rehabilitation Of Junction CityJunction City, OR 4 of 5Avamere Rehabilitation Of King CityTigard, OR 4 of 5Avamere Rehabilitation Of NewportNewport, OR 4 of 5Avamere Transitional Care Of Puget SoundTacoma, WA 4 of 5Richmond Beach RehabShoreline, WA 4 of 5The PEARL AT KRUSE WAYLake Oswego, OR 5 of 5Avamere At Three FountainsMedford, OR 5 of 5Avamere Rehabilitation Of Cascade ParkVancouver, WA 5 of 5Queen Anne HealthcareSeattle, WA

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
ARI CBC LLCOrganizationDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTsince 01/06/2006
ARI OPERATIONS, LLCOrganizationINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTsince 01/06/2006
AVAMERE GROUP LLCOrganizationINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTsince 01/06/2006
MIDCAP FINCO LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 01/22/2010
CAVALLO, GLENIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODYsince 06/01/2025
FEAKIN, CODYIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2025
FUNDERBERG, MICHELLEIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNFsince 06/01/2025
HASKINS, DAMIENIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNFsince 09/01/2025
HILL, KEVINIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNFsince 03/12/2022
HOSKINS, TONIAIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 06/01/2025
INSKEEP, TODDIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/21/2022
KOFSTAD, MARYIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 02/13/2024
MUNRO, JOLYNNIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 06/01/2025
OKOLI, IKEIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODYsince 06/01/2025
POLSON, JUSTINIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNFsince 02/10/2025
POWELSON, MICHELEIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 03/25/2015
REID, MISTYIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/02/2025
SANDERS, AMANDAIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODYsince 06/01/2025
SIMPSON, ANDREWIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 06/01/2024
STRUNK, COLBYIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNFsince 06/01/2025
VANDERZANDEN, CARRIEIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2025
AVAMERE HEALTH SERVICES LLCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2005
AVAMERE SKILLED ADVISORS LLCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2005
ANGERHOFER, NICOLEIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 12/01/2023
DANA, JENNIFERIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 05/01/2022
DOEPKER, ANDREAIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 09/28/2023
GARRETT, MICHELLEIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 08/21/2019
HAMM, BENIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 03/03/2026
PRESLEY, YOLANDAIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/06/2025
VELLODY, NITAIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 08/01/2020
DAVIS, JULIEIndividualADP OF THE SNFsince 08/01/2024
GAMES, KIMIndividualADP OF THE SNFsince 08/15/2024
STAPLES, CAROLYNIndividualADP OF THE SNFsince 10/05/2023
WAINSCOTT, CHEYENNEIndividualADP OF THE SNFsince 05/12/2025

CMS files one row per role, so the 65 rows in the source record cover these 34 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.

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

Follow the money — this home’s finances

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

$8.9M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
+3.6%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$927K
Related-party expense11% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 62%Medicare 9%Other / private 29%

This home reported $927K 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

$542per resident / day
operating cost
$16,470per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$562per 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

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

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 385203. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-12-04, 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