Marquis Autumn Hills Memory Care
6630 SW Beaverton-Hillsdale Hwy, Portland, OR 97225 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 39 certified beds · (503) 292-7874 Medicaid only — no Medicare
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (24% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited May 2025
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0605) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- a high number of inspection citations overall (15) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $223,270 in federal fines (most recent 2026-02-27)
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 | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 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 | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 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 4 to 5 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 | 10.3% | 14.9% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.8% | 4.7% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 1.4% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.8% | 2.0% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 4.9% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 0.0% | 2.4% | 3.3% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 11.9% | 20.6% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 20.4% | 12.4% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 90.3% | 95.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.3% | 5.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 22.7% | 21.8% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 15.6% | 13.9% | 17.1% | typical |
* 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.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 39 beds and averages 30.5 residents a day — about 78% occupied, or roughly 8 beds typically open. It usually has some room. 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 0.68 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.47 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 4.27 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.81 on weekdays — 11% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.70 to 0.63 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 24% is below the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
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.
15 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · G2024-04-10 · 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 act upon complaints of hip pain and rule out significant injury after multiple falls for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#3) reviewed for falls. As a result, Resident 3 experienced prolonged pain over a period of four weeks, and a delay in diagnosis of hip fracture requiring hospitalization and surgery. The hip fracture was not diagnosed until 8/5/23, 31 days after her/his fall on 7/4/23. Findings include: Resident 3 was admitted to the facility in 3/2023, with diagnoses including stroke and dementia. Resident 3's care plan dated 2/28/23 noted she/he was was a fall risk due to impaired mobility, gait unsteadiness and decreased safety awareness due to her/his cognitive impairment. The care plan indicated Resident 3 had experienced falls in 3/2023 and 6/2023. Resident 3's Progress Notes revealed she/he experienced three falls on 7/4/23, 7/8/23 and 7/9/23. The 7/4/23 Post Fall Assessment revealed Resident 3 attempted to stand, fell and hit her/his head and hip and reported pain in her/his back, left side of her/his…
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 · E2026-02-27 · tag F0919 — failed to provide a working call system — patternMake sure that a working call system is available in each resident's bathroom and bathing area.
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 functional call lights for 3 of 3 sampled residents (#s 20, 21, and 26) reviewed for accommodation of needs. This placed residents at risk for not being able to call for assistance. Findings include: The facility's 1/2016 Assessment for Ability to Make Use of Electric Call System policy instructed facility staff to assess residents for call light use at admission and when a significant change occurred. The policy instructed facility staff to document identified call light safety risks in the resident's record.a. Resident 20 was admitted to the facility in 2/2024 with diagnoses including unspecified dementia.Resident 20's 8/30/25 revised care plan revealed she/he used a pressure sensitive call light pad. b. Resident 21 was admitted to the facility in 8/2025 with diagnoses including unspecified dementia and repeated falls.Resident 21's 2/14/26 revised care plan did not include information related to call light use. c. Resident 26 was admitted to the facility in 6/2019 with diagnoses…
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 · D2026-02-27 · tag F0605 — failed to not use drugs as a restraint — isolatedPrevent the use of unnecessary psychotropic medications or use medications that may restrain a resident's ability to function.
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 adequate monitoring of antipsychotic medication use for 1 of 5 sampled residents (#16) reviewed for medications. This placed residents at risk for adverse side effects of antipsychotic medication. Findings include: Resident 16 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including vascular dementia with agitation and depression.A 1/12/26 physician order revealed Resident 16 was prescribed quetiapine 75 MG (an antipsychotic medication) twice daily.A review of Resident 16's medical record revealed no indication an Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS) (used to identify if symptoms/side effects of psychoactive medication use were present) assessment was completed.On 2/26/26 at 3:58 PM Staff 2 (RNCM/DNS/IP) stated Resident 16 was already on an antipsychotic medication upon admission, so her understanding was Resident 16 did not require an AIMS completed until six months after admission.On 2/26/26 at 4:10 PM Staff 11…
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 · D2026-02-27 · tag F0676 — failed to keep up residents' daily-living abilities — isolatedEnsure residents do not lose the ability to perform activities of daily living unless there is a medical reason.
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 assistance was provided with dressing and personal hygiene for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#9) reviewed for ADLs. This placed residents at risk for poor hygiene. Findings include:Resident 9 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including delusional disorders.The 2022 [NAME] Standards of Care indicated the following:-Staff were required to change residents' clothing each day. -Staff were required to shave residents as needed. The 10/2025 Care Plan indicated the following:-Resident 9 required supervision and assistance to complete dressing.-Ensure clothing and footwear was clean.-Provide assistance with dressing after resident attempted each step. -Pick out a couple appropriate outfits and offer me choices.The Kardex indicated Resident 9 required constant supervision with cueing and minimal physical assistance during shaving.The 11/2025 Quarterly MDS indicated Resident 9 had a BIMS score of 6 which…
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 before2025-05-15 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to honor the resident's right to be free from physical abuse from other residents for 1 of 6 sampled residents (#2) reviewed for abuse. This placed residents at risk for physical abuse. Findings include: Resident 2 admitted to the facility in 3/2025 with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease. Resident 2's 3/17/25 admission MDS revealed she/he had a BIMS of 9, which indicated moderate cognitive impairment.Resident 3 admitted to the facility in 8/2023 with diagnoses including dementia.Resident 3's 2/24/25 Quarterly MDS revealed she/he had a BIMS of 12, which indicated moderate cognitive impairment.An 4/19/25 facility Investigation Summary and Conclusion revealed on the morning of 4/19/25 Resident 2 and Resident 3 were in their shared room asleep when Resident 2 woke up and turned on the overhead light. Resident 3 woke up and became angry, swore at Resident 2, and pushed her/him back onto her/his bed. Resident 3 then went to the common television room to complain about the overhead light being on. 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.
- Potential for harm · E2024-10-24 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure 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 — 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 medication storage areas were secured and free of expired medication for 1 of 1 medication cart and 1 of 1 medication storage room reviewed for safe medication storage. This placed residents at risk for misappropriation of medications, adverse medication consequences and diminished treatment efficacy. Findings include: The facility's Storage of Medication Policy, revised 5/2010, stated, The Facility shall store all drugs and biologicals in a safe, secure, and orderly manner. 1. On [DATE] at 1:49 PM the Intemediate Care medication cart outside of room [ROOM NUMBER] was unlocked and unattended. On [DATE] at 1:53 PM Staff 4 (CMA) confirmed the cart was unlocked and unattended. On [DATE] at 1:00 PM Staff 1 (Administrator) was informed of these findings. No Additional information was provided. 2. On [DATE] at 7:44 AM a multidose bottle of Lorazepam (a controlled antianxiety medication) was found in the locked medication…
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 · Ecited before2024-10-24 · 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
Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to implement Enhanced Barrier Precautions for 1 of 1 facility reviewed for infection control. This placed residents at risk for exposure to infections. Findings include: The facility's undated Isolation - Categories of Transmission-Based Precautions policy indicated Enhanced Barrier Precautions were to be used for residents with catheters and complex wounds. On 10/21/24 Staff 1 (Administrator) provided a list of residents with catheters which included Residents 2, 8, and 14. On 10/22/24 at 12:38 PM Resident 2 and Resident 14's rooms were observed with no signage to indicate they were on Enhanced Barrier Precautions. At this time Staff 8 (CNA) stated there were no residents with precautions on the hall. On 10/22/24 at 2:10 PM Resident 8's room was observed with no signage to indicate she/he was on Enhanced Barrier Precautions. On 10/22/24 at 2:16 PM Staff 2 (DNS) stated the facility implemented Enhanced Barrier Precautions for Resident 2, Resident 8, and Resident 14 due to catheter use. Staff 2…
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 · D2024-10-24 · 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 residents of the risks and benefits of psychotropic medication use for 1 of 5 sampled residents (#9) reviewed for medications. This placed residents at risk for being uniformed of psychotropic medication. Findings include: Resident 9 was admitted to the facility in 8/2024 with the diagnoses including vascular dementia. The 10/22/24 Physician Orders revealed an order for Duloxetine (antidepressant)to be administered daily. The medical record revealed no evidence risk and benefit information for Duloxetine was reviewed with Resident 9. On 10/24/24 at 11:05 AM Staff 6 (LPN Resident Care Manager Support) acknowledged risk and benefit information related to the use of Duloxetine was not provided to Resident 9.
- Potential for harm · D2024-10-24 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to assess significant weight loss for 1 of 2 sampled residents (#11) reviewed for nutrition. This placed residents at risk for additional weight loss. Findings include: Resident 11 admitted to the facility in 5/2023 with diagnoses of vascular dementia and malnutrition. A 5/2/23 Nutrition Care Plan revealed Resident 11 was at risk for impaired nutrition due to severe malnutrition and vascular dementia with a goal of Resident 11 maintaining or increasing her/his weight to above 167 pounds. The interventions for Resident 11 included a referral to a dietitian for evaluation and recommendations as needed. A 5/12/24 Dietitian Assessment revealed Resident 11 weighed 157.4 pounds and weight gain was beneficial. A 7/23/24 Provider Progress Note revealed Resident 11 weighed 164.9 pounds, her/his weight was stable for the last six months, no additional interventions were put in place. An 8/21/24 Provider Progress Note revealed Resident 11 weighed 164.8 pounds, her/his weight was stable for the last six months, no…
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 · D2024-10-24 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
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 offer pneumococcal immunizations for 1 of 5 sampled residents (#27) reviewed for immunizations. This placed residents at risk for lack of vaccination. Findings Include: Resident 27 admitted to the facility in 2/2024 with diagnoses including chronic pain. Resident 27's immunization records did not indicate if she/he was assessed for, offered, or declined a pneumococcal vaccination following admission to the facility. On 10/24/24 at 12:06 PM Staff 3 (Regional RN) stated the medical record showed no documentation the facility offered a pneumococcal vaccination to Resident 27.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-04-10 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were free from physical abuse for 1 of 15 sampled residents (#2) reviewed for abuse. This placed residents at risk for abuse. Findings include: Resident 2 was admitted to the facility in 1/2024 with diagnoses including dementia. Resident 2's most recent MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed no BIMS score, which indicated she/he had severe cognitive impairment. Resident 2 had no behavioral issues documented. Resident 1 was admitted to the facility in 3/2022 with diagnoses including dementia and delusional disorder. Resident 1's most recent MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed a BIMS score of 9, which indicated she/he had moderate cognitive impairment. Behaviors documented were physical and verbal symptoms directed toward others which placed other residents at significant risk of physical injury. Interventions were to remove her/him from the area and provide low stimulus diversional activities. On 2/23/24 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.
- Potential for harm · E2019-11-26 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — patternProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview it was determined the facility failed to discard expired medication for 1 of 1 medication room reviewed for medication storage. This placed residents at risk for receiving ineffective medications. Findings include: On 11/22/19 at 12:26 PM the medication storage room was observed to have three unopened multi-dose bottles of Loperamide Hydrochloride suspension (medication used to treat diarrhea) with an expiration date of 10/2019 and a unopened fleet enema with an expiration date of 5/31/2019. On 11/22/19 at 12:30 PM Staff 9 (RN) confirmed three multi-dose bottles of Loperamide Hydrochloride suspension and one fleet enema were expired and were expected to be removed from the medication storage room. On 11/26/19 at 2:30 PM Staff 2 (DNS) stated her expectation was all expired medications were to be removed from the medication storage room and destroyed.
- Potential for harm · D2019-11-26 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility had a medication error rate of greater than 5%. The facility's error rate was 7.69% with two errors in 26 opportunities. This placed residents at risk for inaccurate medication dosage. Findings include: a. Resident 5's 11/2019 MAR indicated the resident received Albuterol inhaler two puffs two times a day. On 11/25/19 the Albuterol inhaler manufacturer dosing recommendations indicated to wait one minute between each inhaler puff administered. The facility's 5/2010 policy on administering medication through a metered dose inhaler indicated to allow at least one minute between inhaler puffs. On 11/25/19 at 9:00 AM Staff 10 (CMA) was observed to administer two puffs of the Albuterol metered dose inhaler to Resident 5. The two puffs of medication were observed to be administered within five seconds between each puff. On 11/25/19 at 9:30 AM Staff 10 stated she was unaware of any spacing parameters when administering a metered dose inhaler. On 11/26/19 at 1:33 PM Staff 2 (DNS) stated her expectation 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 · Dcited before2019-11-26 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure proper infection control during medication administration for 1 of 6 sampled residents (#5) reviewed for medication administration. This placed residents at risk for cross-contamination and infection. Findings include: On 11/25/19 at 9:20 AM during medication administration Staff 10 (CMA) was observed to administer to Resident 5 Miralax (bowel medication), a medication dissolved in water, in a disposable plastic cup. Resident 5 was observed to drink one fourth of the dose. Staff 10 placed the used, contaminated, unlabeled plastic cup on the clean medication cart and walked away from the cart. On 11/25/19 at 9:30 AM Staff 10 stated she contaminated the medication cart and placed other residents at risk of cross-contamination by placing the used contaminated plastic cup on her clean medication cart. She acknowledged she intended to offer the medication to Resident 5 at later time. On 11/26/19 at 1:33 PM Staff 2 (DNS) confirmed contaminated items, such as used medication cups, were not to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · B2026-02-27 · tag F0628 — patternProvide the required documentation or notification related to the resident's needs, appeal rights, or bed-hold policies.
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 provide residents with a written bed hold notification, including reserved bed hold payment, at the time of transfer to the hospital for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#5) reviewed for hospitalization. This placed residents at risk for lack of knowledge regarding their choices and potential financial responsibilities. Findings include:Resident 5 was admitted to the facility in 4/2024 with diagnoses including diabetes and heart disease.A review of Resident 5's clinical record revealed she/he was transferred to the hospital on the following dates: 11/19/25, 11/29/25, 12/2/25, 12/21/25, and 2/10/26. No evidence was found in Resident 5's clinical record to indicate written notice of the facility's bed hold policy was provided to the resident or her/his representative when she/he was transferred to the hospital.On 2/26/26 at 3:47 PM Staff 10 (LPN Resident Care Manager) stated upon transfer to the hospital, the charge nurse was to open an assessment in the resident's medical record and provide the resident with a bed…
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
$223,270 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $223,270 — penalty dated 2026-02-27
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.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership Data Not Available |
The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
What families pay in OR
CMS lists this home as Medicaid-certified only — it can accept Medicaid for long-term care, but it is not Medicare-certified, so Medicare will not pay for a short rehabilitation (“skilled nursing”) stay here. 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 38A026. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-02-27, 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.