Stanley Post Acute
12045 SE Stanley Avenue, Milwaukie, OR 97222 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 96 certified beds · (503) 659-2323 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- a high number of inspection citations overall (32) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $8,278 in federal fines (most recent 2026-02-20)
- nursing-staff turnover (58%) runs well above the national median (45%)
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.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 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 3 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.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 11.2% | 14.9% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 0.5% | 4.7% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.3% | 1.4% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.7% | 2.0% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 21.4% | 4.9% | 6.5% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 0.8% | 2.4% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 18.2% | 20.6% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 22.4% | 12.4% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 94.3% | 95.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.5% | 5.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 25.4% | 21.8% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 18.9% | 13.9% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.9% | 1.4% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 92.7% | 81.2% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 28.3% | 21.4% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 16.8% | 16.1% | 12.0% | worse |
§ 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.
53.5% 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 101 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 60.5% 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 38 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 0.50 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 81% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 30% 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
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 53.5%CMS range 43.3–67.3 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.5%CMS range 6.4–12.8 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no 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 discharge | 60.5% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS 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 discharge | 42.1% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 39.5% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS 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 identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS 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 setting | not 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 discharge | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS 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 stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.0%CMS range 3.7–10.9 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.96 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS 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
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 96 beds and averages 88.3 residents a day — about 92% occupied, or roughly 8 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.65 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.21 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.46 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 4.31 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.79 on weekdays — 10% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.23 to 0.16 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 58% is well above the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
32 citations, most serious first. The 11 most serious are shown; the remaining 21 are one tap away and print in full.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2026-02-20 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure 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 a fall for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#2) reviewed for falls. As a result, Resident 2 suffered bilateral femur fractures. Findings include:Resident 2 admitted to the facility in 2015 with diagnoses of diabetes and urinary incontinence.Resident 2's 1/9/26 MDS assessment indicated Resident 2 was dependent on staff for ADLs including bed mobility and toileting.Resident 2's Care Plan documented Resident 2 required two-person assistance and was dependent on staff for ADLs including toileting and bed mobility. Resident 2's Progress Notes documented:-At 7:40 PM on 2/7/26, Staff 3 (LPN) charted Resident was transferred to the hospital after a witnessed fall at 4:40 PM.-At 10:30 AM on 2/8/26, Staff 7 (RN) charted that a hospital social worker called to report Resident 2 required surgery on her/his legs.A 2/7/26 Fall Report initiated by Staff 3 on 2/7/26 at 6:50 PM documented:-Staff 5 (CNA) left the resident's room to request barrier cream from Staff 3, leaving Staff 4…
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.
- Potential for harm · E2025-09-05 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide 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 use appropriate disinfection practices for reusable medical equipment, failed to ensure the community use CBG glucometer was properly cleaned and sanitized between resident use, and failed to ensure hand hygiene was completed for 1 of 4 halls reviewed for infection control and meal service, and 1 of 1 sampled resident (#44) reviewed during medication pass. This placed all residents who required CBG checks at risk for exposure to infections including bloodborne illness and placed residents at risk for cross contamination. Findings include:The facility policy Guidelines for Cleaning and Disinfection of Non-Critical Resident Care Items dated 9/1/24 indicated: Reusable items are cleaned and disinfected or sterilized between residents (e.g., stethoscopes, durable medical equipment). 1.On 9/4/25 at 6:59 AM, Staff 4 (CNA) was observed exiting room [ROOM NUMBER] with a rolling vitals cart which contained reusable vitals equipment…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2025-09-05 · tag F0552 — isolatedEnsure that residents are fully informed and understand their health status, care and treatments.
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 inform the resident of the risks and benefits of a psychotropic medication for 1 of 5 sampled residents (#37) reviewed for unnecessary medications. This placed residents of risk of being uninformed. Findings included: Resident 37 admitted to the facility in 2025 with diagnoses including insomnia and depression. A 6/11/25 physician order indicated 25mg quetiapine fumarate (antipsychotic) related to insomnia for Resident 37. An updated 7/10/25 physician order indicated an increase of the quetiapine fumarate to 50mg related to depression. Review of Resident 37's medical record revealed no indication the resident was informed of the risks and benefits of the use of quetiapine fumarate.On 9/4/25 at 2:00 PM Staff 2 (DNS) acknowledged there was no evidence in Resident 37's medical record a risk and benefits of the quetiapine fumarate was completed.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-09-05 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor 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 ensure resident advance directives were available for 2 of 4 sampled residents #s 46 and 96) reviewed for advance directives. This placed residents at risk for not having their end of life preferences honored. Findings include:The facility's 9/2024 Advance Directive policy indicated residents were to be asked about, and provided with information about, advance directives upon admission and quarterly thereafter.1.Resident 46 admitted to the facility in 2021 with diagnoses including diabetes.A 12/2023 POLST (Physician Order for Life Sustaining Treatment) indicated Resident 46's family member was the medical power of attorney.Resident 46's care plan, revised on 8/14/25, indicated the resident had an advance directive. The resident's advance directive was to be honored and kept in the medical record at all times.A review of Resident 46's medical record revealed neither the medical power of attorney form nor the advance directive were on file.On 9/3/25 at 12:36 PM Resident 46 stated she/he completed an advance…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2025-09-05 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
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 consistently provide restorative services to maintain range of motion for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#96) reviewed for mobility. This placed resident at risk for decreased range of motion. Findings include:Resident 96 was admitted to the facility in 8/2022 with a diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. A 3/18/2025 Restorative Nursing Referral revealed Resident 96 was to receive passive ROM exercises for her/his right and left lower extremities. Resident 96's 7/31/25 Annual MDS revealed she/he was cognitively intact, had ROM impairment on both sides of her/his lower extremities and received no passive ROM during the seven-day look back period. Resident 96's Comprehensive Care Plan last revised on 8/18/25 included a restorative nursing program to address her/his risk for decreased range of motion which included bilateral knee and right hip passive ROM exercises. A review of Resident 96's ROM Program Task tracking form from 8/5/25 through 9/3/25 and a restorative nursing services binder revealed no documentation 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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-09-05 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure proper labeling of biologicals for 1 of 2 treatment carts reviewed for medication storage. This placed residents at risk for reduced efficacy of medication. Findings include:On 9/4/25 at 7:00 PM Staff 3 (LPN) was observed to prepare insulin glargine for Resident 44, there was no open date on the insulin vial. The manufacturer's instructions indicated the medication was to be discarded 28 days after opening.On 9/4/25 at 7:00 PM Staff 3 acknowledged the insulin glargine vial was open with no open date.
- Potential for harm · D2025-09-05 · tag F0791 — failed to provide routine dental services — isolatedProvide or obtain dental services for each 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 assist a resident with obtaining dentures for 1 of 2 sampled residents (#3) reviewed for dental care. This placed residents at risk for decreased quality of life. Findings include:Resident 3 admitted to the facility in 1/2025 with diagnoses including blindness. A 2/1/25 admission MDS indicated Resident 3 had no dental concerns. A 7/8/25 progress note indicated a physician ordered new bottom dentures for Resident 3. A 7/8/25 physician order indicated a new bottom denture was to be fabricated. No further information related to the new lower denture was found in the resident's clinical record. On 9/2/25 Resident 3 stated she/he had a dental appointment two months ago and was supposed to receive a new lower denture, but she/he did not receive anything and was unsure why. On 9/3/25 at 1:42 PM Staff 12 (Social Services) stated she was typically involved with assisting residents acquiring dentures but she was unaware of Resident 3's new order for a new lower denture. On 9/3/25 at 3:16 PM Staff 5 (LPN Resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-08-28 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure 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 ensure staff followed the care plan related to toileting for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#7) reviewed for accidents. This placed residents at risk for injuries. Findings include:Resident 7 was admitted to the facility in 9/2015 with diagnoses including multiple sclerosis and overactive bladder.The 5/15/25 Quarterly MDS revealed Resident 7 had a BIMS score of 15, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact, and dependent for toilet hygiene.A review of the 9/14/24 Care Plan revealed Resident 7 required two-person assistance for toileting.A 2/4/25 facility investigation revealed Resident 7 fell out of bed when Staff 5 (Agency CNA) was providing toileting care and did not have a second person assisting.On 8/25/25 at 12:12 PM Resident 7 stated the staff member rolled her/him off the bed while providing care because the CNA stated she could provide the care herself and did not need another person to assist.On 8/28/25 at 1:16 PM Staff 1 (Administrator) and Staff 2 (DNS) acknowledged Resident 7's care was 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.
- Potential for harm · D2025-02-14 · tag F0661 — isolatedEnsure necessary information is communicated to the resident, and receiving health care provider at the time of a planned discharge.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview it was determined the facility failed to complete a discharge summary which included a recapitulation of stay and a final summary of the resident's status for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#1) reviewed for a discharge summary. This placed residents at risk for unmet needs post discharge. Findings include: Resident 1 admitted to the facility in 4/2024, with diagnoses including hip fracture and congestive heart failure. On 7/1/24, the State Agency received a public complaint which alleged Resident 1 was discharged home and the facility did not refer Resident 1 to her/his long standing home health agency. Witness 1 (Complainant) stated she made multiple phone calls to the facility in order to ensure Resident 1 received continuity of care with her/his home health agency upon her/his discharge. Witness 1 stated the facility referred Resident 1 to a different home health agency and the other home health agency never made a home visit. Review of the Discharge summary dated [DATE]…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-02-14 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to follow physician orders for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#4) reviewed for medication administration. This placed residents at risk for unmet medication needs. Findings include: Resident 4 admitted to the facility in 8/2024, with diagnoses including End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) and clavicle fracture. Resident 4's initial care plan dated 8/24/24 revealed she/he received medications for pain and End Stage Renal Disease and attended dialysis two times per week. Physician orders dated 8/24/24 revealed Resident 4 was to receive Gabapentin (a medication for nerve pain), 100 mg capsule TID, and Sodium Zirconium Cyclosilicate, 1 packet QD for hyperkalemia (a condition where the potassium level in the blood is too high) on the resident's non dialysis days. Review of Resident 4's 9/2024 MAR revealed she/he was not administered Sodium Zirconium Cyclosilicate on 9/12/24 and 9/14/24 and was not administered Gabapentin on 9/24/24, 9/25/24 and 9/26/24. Progress notes reviewed from 9/12/24 through 9/26/24 did not provide an…
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.
- Potential for harm · E2024-05-20 · tag F0636 — patternAssess the resident completely in a timely manner when first admitted, and then periodically, at least every 12 months.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to comprehensively assess 8 of 14 sampled residents (#s 25, 26, 32, 36, 52, 55, 57 and 114) reviewed for medications, pressure ulcers, ADLs, pain and nutrition. This placed residents at risk for unassessed needs. Findings include: 1. Resident 57 was admitted to the facility on 4/2024 with diagnoses including chronic heart failure and diabetes. The 4/25/24 admission MDS indicated Resident 57 received an antidepressant medication. The Psychotropic Drug Use CAA associated with the 4/25/24 MDS indicated psych meds per physician orders. The CAA did not indicate a description of the problem, causes and contributing factors or how the resident's symptoms manifested or whether the medication was effective. On 5/20/24 at 8:58 AM Staff 16 (MDS Coordinator) stated she was responsible for completing the MDS assessment and CAAs for all residents. Staff 16 stated she worked remotely and reviewed resident electronic medical records to complete the CAA section. On 5/20/24 at 1:13 PM Staff 2 (DNS) stated she was unfamiliar…
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.
Show the remaining 21 citations
- Potential for harm · E2024-05-20 · tag F0730 — patternObserve each nurse aide's job performance and give regular training.
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 ensure CNAs received annual performance reviews for 4 of 5 randomly selected CNAs (#s 15, 23, 24, and 25) reviewed for staff performance reviews. This placed residents at risk for lack of care by competent staff. Findings include: On 5/17/24 at 9:58 AM a review of facility personnel records with Staff 31 (Human Resource Director) indicated the following: - Staff 15 (CNA) was hired on 8/17/22; no annual performance review was completed. - Staff 23 (CMA) was hired on 8/31/20; no annual performance reviews were completed. - Staff 24 (CNA) was hired on 6/16/16; no annual performance reviews were completed. - Staff 25 (CNA) was hired on 4/11/16; no annual performance reviews were completed. On 5/17/24 at 4:04 PM Staff 1 (Administrator) stated it was his expectation the annual performance reviews were completed annually. Staff 1 confirmed the annual performance reviews were not completed for Staff 15, Staff 23, Staff 24, or Staff 25.
- Potential for harm · D2024-05-20 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
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 a resident was treated in a dignified manner for 1 of 4 sampled residents (#114) reviewed for dignity. This placed residents at risk for lessened quality of life. Findings include: Resident 114 was admitted to the facility on 2/2024 with diagnoses including end stage renal disease and depression. A 3/20/24 Mistreatment Investigation revealed the following: * Staff 2 (DNS) was informed on 2/27/24 Resident 114 had a concern regarding her/his care. Staff 2 spoke with Resident 114, who indicated the incident occurred roughly one week prior. During the night shift, a female staff member entered the resident's room because she/he had a bowel movement in bed. The staff person stated, Oh, you shit the bed. Resident 114 did not feel abused, but stated the staff person was rude. Resident 114 stated other staff assisted with cleaning her/him up. *Staff 2 determined Staff 26 (Former RN) worked with Resident 114 on 2/19/24 during the night of the incident. *Staff 26 recalled the incident and stated Resident 114…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2024-05-20 · tag F0554 — isolatedAllow residents to self-administer drugs if determined clinically appropriate.
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 assess self-administration of a medication for 2 of 3 sampled residents (#s 8 and 26) reviewed for self-administration of medication. This placed residents at risk for unsafe medication administration. Findings include: The facility's Self-Administration Medication policy last revised on 3/2020, specified the following: -Upon admission the resident's desire to self-administer is ascertained. -During the 14-day admission assessment period the RCM (Resident Care Manager) evaluates the resident's ability to self-administer medications. -If the resident has the cognitive, physical, and emotional ability to self-administer their own medications in a safe and prudent manner a plan for self-administration is established with the resident. -A physician order is obtained indicating the specific medications that the resident is able to self-administer. -The self-administration is on the resident's care plan to include location of drugs, documentation procedure, place of administration and specific…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2024-05-20 · tag F0557 — isolatedHonor the resident's right to be treated with respect and dignity and to retain and use personal possessions.
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 resident personal property was identified upon admission, and clothing was retained and accessible for 2 of 4 sampled residents (#s 20 and 57) reviewed for personal property. This place residents at risk for loss of personal property. Findings include: The facility's Resident Personal Items Safekeeping policy, last revised 4/2023, specified the following: -All personal items, including but not limited to clothing, dentures, glasses, and hearing aids must be marked with the resident's name upon admission. -The facility designee will assist residents and families with marking the personal belongings. -On admission and thereafter each time a resident's personal possession is brought into the facility, the item will be recorded on the resident's inventory record by designated staff and signed by the resident or responsible party. -If any personal items is lost during a resident's stay, an investigation will be completed…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2024-05-20 · tag F0655 — isolatedCreate and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
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 a written summary of a baseline care plan was reviewed and provided to residents within 48 hours of admission for 2 of 3 sampled residents (#s 4 and 44) reviewed for care planning. This placed residents at risk for being uninformed about their plan of care. Findings include: 1. Resident 4 was admitted to the facility in 2022 with diagnoses including paralysis of left side and osteoporosis. On 5/14/24 Resident 4's clinical record was reviewed. No record was found that Resident 4 had a baseline care plan reviewed or provided to her/him. On 5/16/24 at 12:33 PM Staff 3 (Corporate SSD) confirmed no baseline care plan was discussed or provided to Resident 4. 2. Resident 44 was admitted to the facility in 2/2024 with diagnoses including heart failure and chronic kidney disease. Resident 44's 2/2024 admission MDS indicated she/he was cognitively intact. On 5/14/24 Resident 44's clinical record was reviewed. No record was found that Resident 44 had a baseline care plan reviewed or provided to her/him. 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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-05-20 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to follow physician orders and provide bowel medication in a timely manner for 1 of 6 sampled residents (#57) reviewed for medications. This placed residents at risk for medical complications from constipation. Findings include: The facility's Bowel Care Protocol Policy last revised on 2/2019, specified the following: -At beginning of each shift the nurse will pull the bowel care report and identify residents that have not had a BM (Bowel Movement) for 3 days. -Residents who have not had a BM in three days will be given MOM (Milk of Magnesia). -If no BM by the following shift, a Dulcolax suppository is given. -If resident continues without BM by the next shift a Fleets enema will be given. -Residents who are noted as having small bowel movement will be assessed for constipation. -If resident exceeds four days without a BM, the nurse will complete an abdominal assessment and the physician will be notified for further orders. Resident 57…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2024-05-20 · tag F0687 — failed to care for feet properly — isolatedProvide appropriate foot care.
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 appropriate foot care for 3 of 3 sampled residents (#s 26, 41 and 57) reviewed for foot care. This placed residents at risk for lack of nail care and infections. Findings include: 1. Resident 41 was admitted to the facility on 3/2024 with diagnoses including diabetes. A Physician Order dated 3/27/24 directed a licensed nurse to check Resident 41's fingernails and toenails once a week on bath day. The order indicated to trim as needed every day shift on Wednesdays for diabetic nail checks. Staff were directed to document (+) if the nails were trimmed and (-) if nail trimming was not needed. A review of the LN Task from 3/2024 through 5/2024 revealed the following: -3/27/24 nails did not need trimmed. -4/3/24, 4/10/24 and 4/17/24 nails did not need trimmed. 4/24/24 Resident 41 refused nail care. -5/1/24 nails did not need trimmed. 5/8/24 Resident 41 refused nail care. A Progress Note dated 5/9/24 revealed Staff 9…
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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-05-20 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure 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 ensure interventions were in place to prevent smoking related accidents for 1 of 2 sampled residents (#32) reviewed for accidents. This placed residents at risk for smoking-related accidents. Findings include: The facility's 10/2023 Smoking Policy and Procedure indicated the following: -Residents who wish to smoke are evaluated for their ability to smoke safely. A smoking evaluation is completed at admission or at the time they decided to smoke, to evaluate their ability to smoke safely. -Definition of Smoking Materials: Cigarettes, Cigars, Pipes, Novelties - E-Cigarettes, Vapor Devices, Ignition Sources. -Residents who do not adhere to the smoking policies are subject to revocation of their ability to smoke while a resident at the facility. Resident 32 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including right lower extremity cellulitis and diabetes. A 4/28/24 progress note revealed a fire alarm was triggered when…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2024-05-20 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide 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 maintain oxygen equipment and ensure oxygen was administered as ordered for 1 of 2 sampled residents (#46) reviewed for oxygen therapy. This placed residents at risk for increased risk for respiratory failure. Findings include: Resident 46 was admitted to the facility in 2/2024 with diagnoses including acute and chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia (not enough oxygen in the blood) and hypercapnia (buildup of carbon dioxide in the bloodstream). The 2/9/24 admission MDS indicated Resident 46 was cognitively intact. The 5/13/24 physician order for Resident 46 revealed the resident used continuous oxygen with a flow rate of two liters since 4/25/24. On 5/13/24 at 12:04 PM Resident 46 was observed to use an oxygen concentrator with a flow rate of three liters. The external filter on the oxygen concentrator was observed to have a layer of dust when touched with a finger. The resident stated she/he used oxygen most of the time but could not state how many liters were prescribed. On 5/16/24 at…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2024-05-20 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate pain management for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure a resident's ordered pain medication was available and effectively managed the resident's severe pain for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#36) reviewed for pain management. This failure placed residents at risk for unrelieved pain. Findings include: Resident 36 was admitted to the facility in 9/2023 with diagnoses including rheumatoid arthritis, a fractured tibia and polyneuropathy (nerve pain). A Physician Order dated [DATE] directed staff to administer Percocet (pain medication), one tablet 10-325 MG (oxycodone with acetaminophen) by mouth six times a day related to displaced bicondylar fracture of the right tibia. Resident 36's 5/2024 MAR revealed the resident was administered Percocet on [DATE] at 2:00 AM. The resident was not administered Percocet on [DATE] at 6:00 AM, 10:00 AM or 2:00 PM. A Physician Order dated [DATE] directed staff to administer oxycodone 10 MG with 325 MG Tylenol, one tablet by mouth one time only…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2024-05-20 · tag F0742 — isolatedProvide the appropriate treatment and services to a resident who displays or is diagnosed with mental disorder or psychosocial adjustment difficulty, or who has a history of trauma and/or post-traumatic stress disorder.
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 person-centered approaches to behavioral symptoms for 1 of 2 sampled residents (#32) reviewed for psychosocial well-being. This placed residents at risk for unmet psychosocial and mental health needs. Findings include: Resident 32 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including right lower extremity cellulitis and diabetes. The resident did not have a documented diagnosis related to mental health or trauma at the time of admission. A 3/22/24 psychiatric consultation note stated Resident 32 was, labile, cycling through post traumatic memories of fighting in the war with very graphic, disturbing traumatic content, despondent memories and escalating despair. The note recommended Resident 32 continue with psychotherapy treatments. A 4/3/24 physician visit note revealed Resident 32 was distressed from experiences with her/his time in the war. On 5/15/24 at 10:36 AM Staff 28 (CNA) stated Resident 32'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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-05-20 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview it was determined the facility failed to ensure proper labeling of biologicals for 1 of 2 medication rooms reviewed for medication storage. This placed residents at risk for reduced efficacy of medication. Findings include: According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention: Multi-Dose Vial Safety Reminders (2023): -When you first put a clean needle in the vial, write the date and time on the label. -The beyond-use-date refers to the date after which an opened multi-dose vial should not be used. The vial should be discarded within 28 days of the opened date. On 5/20/24 at 12:40 PM during a review of station one medication storage room with Staff 2 (DNS), one vial of lidocaine solution was observed to be opened with no open date. The vial indicated it was a multiple dose vial. On 5/20/24 at 12:44 PM Staff 2 acknowledged the vial of lidocaine solution was opened and not labeled with an open date.
- Potential for harm · D2024-05-20 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to protect resident identifiable information and ensure records were accurate for 2 of 4 sampled residents (#s 41 and 42) reviewed for record management and insulin. This placed residents at risk for unauthorized use of their personal information and inaccurate treatment. Findings include: 1. A review of the facility's 12/2023 HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) Compliance policy indicated the facility was to safeguard all forms of PHI (Protected Health Information) for each resident. On 5/17/24 at 12:33 PM resident identifiable information including Resident 41's name, medication type, prescription number, and the resident's physician's name was observed inside a clear plastic garbage bag with no lid located on the side of a nurse treatment cart. The treatment cart was in the hallway close to the front entrance of the facility and available for anyone in the facility to see. Other items observed in the garbage bag with the resident identifiable information included used…
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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-03-27 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor 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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to have a system in place to ensure residents were provided the opportunity to formulate advance directives for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#33) reviewed for advanced directives. This placed residents at risk for not being informed of choices regarding health care decisions. Findings include: Resident 33 was admitted to the facility in 2020 with diagnoses including stroke. A 1/4/23 Social Service Quarterly Review revealed the resident made her/his own decisions and was able to make her/his needs known using an interpreter. Resident 33's clinical record revealed no documentation to indicate the resident had an advance directive or was provided information concerning the right to formulate an advance directive. On 3/22/23 at 2:41 PM Staff 4 (Social Services Director) stated Resident 33 was her/his own responsible party and she did not provide the resident with an opportunity to formulate an advance directive.
- Potential for harm · D2023-03-27 · tag F0637 — isolatedAssess the resident when there is a significant change in condition
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 document and conduct a Significant Change MDS assessment for 1 of 6 sampled resident (#38) reviewed for activities of daily living and hospitalizations. This placed residents at risk for unassessed care needs. Findings include: Resident 38 was readmitted to the facility 2/2023 after being hospitalized for longer than 24 hours. The resident's readmission diagnosis was fracture of the left femur. Resident 38's secondary diagnoses included dementia and diabetes. According to the CMS Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument 3.0 User's Manual Version 1.15, 10/2017, a Significant Change is a major decline or improvement in a resident's status that will not normally resolve itself without intervention by staff or by implementing standard disease-related clinical interventions; impacts more than one area of the resident's health status; and requires interdisciplinary review and/or revision of the care plan The nursing home may take up to 14 days to determine whether the criteria are met. After 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.
- Potential for harm · D2023-03-27 · tag F0645 — isolatedPASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
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 a PASRR Level II (Preadmission Screening for individuals with a mental disorder and individuals with intellectual disability) was completed for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#12) reviewed for PASRR. This placed residents at risk for not receiving specialized services. Findings include: Resident 12 was admitted to the facility in 2016 with diagnoses including anxiety, depression and cognitive-communication deficit. A 6/6/2019 PASRR Mental Health Evaluation was completed for Resident 12 which recommended a PASRR Level II be completed for an Intellectual Disability/Developmental Disability as the resident likely had a developmental disability. A review of the resident's medical record revealed a progress note dated 6/2/21 documenting the request for a PASRR Level II for Developmental Disability. No evidence was found in the resident's medical record that a PASRR Level II for Developmental Disability was completed. On 3/22/23/at 2:47 PM Staff 4 (Social Services Director) stated she was not aware Resident 12…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2023-03-27 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure a resident's care plan accurately reflected their needs for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#8) reviewed for anticoagulant medication. Findings include: Resident 8 was admitted to the facility in 2023 with diagnoses including atrial fibrillation (irregular heart rhythm), bruising, anemia, coagulation deficit (lack of blood coagulation) and thrombosis (blood clots in large veins which may block blood flow or get lodged in the lungs). On 3/20/23 at 11:46 AM both of Resident 8's forearms were observed with numerous bruises. Her/his left forearm had a large healing scab. The resident stated she/he bruised from bumping into things and it did not matter how gentle it was. Resident 8's current physician's orders as of 3/2023 included aspirin once daily and Eliquis (anticoagulant) twice daily for atrial fibrillation. Resident 8's plan of care as of 3/2023 did not include monitoring for bruising or bleeding related to anticoagulant use. On 3/24/23 at 9:36 AM Staff 3 (LPN) confirmed Resident 8 received…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2023-03-27 · tag F0740 — failed to provide behavioral / mental-health care — isolatedEnsure each resident must receive and the facility must provide necessary behavioral health care and services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide necessary behavioral health care and services for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#12) reviewed for behavioral-emotional needs. This placed residents at risk for unmet behavioral and emotional needs and a decrease in their quality of life. Findings include: Resident 12 was admitted to the facility in 12/2016 with diagnoses including anxiety and depression. A review of Resident 12's Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9, a validated interview that screens for symptoms of depression) scores from 6/2018 to 9/2022 revealed the resident's scores ranged from zero to four, which was indicative of mild depression. Resident 12's [DATE] PHQ-9 score was 10, which indicated moderate depression. Resident 12's [DATE] Social Service Quarterly Review failed to identify the resident's increased PHQ-9 score on [DATE] or provide an assessment of the resident's mood state. Resident 12's [DATE] Care Plan indicated the resident had the potential for mood 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.
- Potential for harm · D2023-03-27 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
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 were free from significant medication errors for 1 of 6 sampled residents (#22) reviewed for medications. This placed residents at risk for adverse medication consequences. Findings include: Resident 22 was re-admitted to the facility in 2022 with diagnoses including cancer and was receiving hospice services. Resident 22's 2/2023 MAR revealed the following narcotic medication orders: - Clonazepam (antianxiety) 1 mg, give one tablet every eight hours at 6:00 AM, 2:00 PM and 10:00 PM. The MAR indicated the clonazepam was administered at every ordered administration time from 2/1/23 through 2/26/23. - Lorazepam (antianxiety) 0.5 mg, give 0.5 mg every four hours at 12:00 AM, 4:00 AM, 8:00 AM, 12:00 PM, 4:00 PM and 8:00 PM. The MAR indicated the lorazepam was administered at every ordered administration time from 2/18/23 through 2/26/23. Resident 22's controlled substance log book sheets revealed the following: - Page #27 indicated the clonazepam was administered on 2/20/23 at 12:00 AM and 4:00…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2023-03-27 · tag F0801 — isolatedEmploy sufficient staff with the appropriate competencies and skills sets to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service, including a qualified dietician.
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 employ a director of food and nutrition services with the required certification for 1 of 1 facility reviewed for qualified dietary staff. This placed residents at risk for unmet dietary needs. Findings include: Observations from 3/20/23 through 3/27/23 from 8:15 AM to 4:30 PM revealed Staff 7 (Food Service Manager) functioned in the capacity of the facility's director of food and nutrition services. On 3/20/23 at 3:42 PM Staff 7 reported he was currently enrolled in a program to become a Certified Food Service Manager and completed the required course. He stated he had not taken the exam yet but planned to in the next couple of weeks. He also stated he attended culinary school but was not sure if that would satisfy the requirements to be a director of food and nutrition services. A review of Staff 7's culinary certification revealed it did not meet the minimum requirements for a director of food and nutrition services. On 3/27/23 at 1:13 PM Staff 1 (Administrator) verified Staff 7 did 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.
- Potential for harm · D2023-03-27 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure 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 prepare and store foods in a manner to prevent cross contamination and spoilage for 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for sanitary practices and 1 of 1 resident (#31) reviewed for food service and storage. This placed residents at risk of foodborne illness. Findings include: 1. On 3/20/23 at 9:10 AM during the initial tour of the facility's kitchen, the main prep island between the stove and dishwashing room was observed to have an open bag of chopped lettuce, an open container of sliced pickles, an open bin of sliced tomatoes and an open bin of sliced onions. Staff 8 (Dietary Aide) was observed scraping food debris from dishes into a garbage container. He reported the cook who was working with these items was on his break. No one else was observed working in the kitchen at that time. On 3/20/23 at 3:38 PM, Staff 7 (Food Service Manager) reported he was aware the cook left the items on the island to go to the bathroom. He reported he expected the items to be covered and stored in the refrigerator when…
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.
“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.
- 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.
Fines & penalties
$8,278 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $8,278 — penalty dated 2026-02-20
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 PACS GROUP — 274 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 3 of 5 | 2.9 | +0.1 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 2.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 4.4 | -1.4 vs chain |
The other 273 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.9★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 273; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| TRUIST BANK | Organization | 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST | since 09/01/2024 |
| APT, FREDERICK | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 05/10/2024 |
| CANO, PILO | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/02/2025 |
| JERGENSEN, JOSHUA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 05/10/2024 |
| KEMPFER, GRETCHEN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 12/16/2024 |
| MITCHELL, JOHN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 05/10/2024 |
| MORRIS, CHRISTOPHER | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/02/2025 |
| MILWAUKIE 12045 REALTY LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/01/2024 |
| PROVIDENCE ADMINISTRATIVE CONSULTING SERVICES INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/01/2024 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 11 rows in the source record cover these 9 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
3 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $1.1M 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
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
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.
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 385270. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-09-05, 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.