Marquis Vermont Hills
6010 SW Shattuck Road, Portland, OR 97221 · For profit - Corporation · 73 certified beds · (503) 246-8811 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited May 2026
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 | 5 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 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 | 1 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 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 | 28.2% | 14.9% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 16.3% | 4.7% | 5.4% | worse |
| 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 | 2.0% | 2.0% | 2.0% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 8.8% | 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 | 3.0% | 2.4% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 6.5% | 12.4% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 95.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 12.3% | 5.8% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 30.0% | 21.8% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 13.9% | 13.9% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.4% | 1.4% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 82.1% | 81.2% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 27.1% | 21.4% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 8.8% | 16.1% | 12.0% | better |
§ 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.
66.8% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 251 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 77.8% 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 149 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 0.61 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 89% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 11% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
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 | 66.8%CMS range 62.0–71.0 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 8.0%CMS range 5.3–10.7 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than 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 | 77.8% | 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 | 69.1% | 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 | 66.4% | 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 | 98.9% | 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 | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this 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 | 4.4% | 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 | 6.8%CMS range 3.8–10.4 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.82 | 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 73 beds and averages 48.6 residents a day — about 67% occupied, or roughly 24 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 5.13 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.74 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.34 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 4.51 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.37 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.92 to 0.27 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 36% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
13 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2026-05-22 · 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 observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were free from unwanted sexual contact by Witness 2 (Non-Family Visitor) for 1 of 1 sampled Resident (#12) reviewed for abuse. This placed residents at risk for unwanted sexual contact and mental anguish. Findings include: Sexual abuse is defined as nonconsensual sexual contact of any type with a resident as defined at 42 CFR S483.5. Sexual contact is considered nonconsensual if the resident either:-Appears to want the contact to occur, but lacks the cognitive ability to consent; or-Does not want the contact to occur.Resident 12 was admitted to the facility in 1/2025 with diagnoses including vascular dementia (a type of dementia caused by reduced blood flow to the brain, leading to cognitive decline).Resident 12's 3/29/26 Quarterly MDS indicated the resident had moderate cognitive impairment.Random observations from 5/18/26 through 5/22/26 between the hours of 8:00 AM through 4:00 PM revealed Resident 12 and Resident 52 shared a room. Residents 12 and Resident 52 were observed…
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 · E2024-12-19 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure foods were labeled and stored in a way to minimize food spoilage in 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for sanitation. This placed residents at risk for potential infections related to foodborne pathogens. Findings include: The facility's undated Storage of Frozen and Refrigerated Foods policy specified the following: -Food needs to be labeled with name of the product if removed from the original packaging. -No food should be stored past the expiration date. On 12/16/24 at 9:20 AM during the initial tour of the facility's kitchen, the following was observed in the walk-in refrigerator: A rolling rack containing trays of multiple undated salad items under large sheets of plastic cling film: -Partially-filled multi-use plastic bins of red beans, cottage cheese, diced hard-boiled eggs, carrots, shredded cheese; -Multi-use plastic bins of full of chopped beets, chopped bacon, garbanzo beans; -Two nearly empty multi-use plastic bins of salad dressings; and -A large multi-use plastic bin of chopped…
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 · D2024-12-19 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to revise the plan of care to reflect residents' needs for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#29) reviewed for hospice. This placed residents at risk for unmet care needs. Findings include: Resident 29 was admitted to the facility in 9/2023 with diagnoses of dementia and hip fracture. Resident 29's 10/15/24 Quarterly MDS indicated he/she required partial to moderate assistance with eating. Resident 29's 10/15/24 Care Plan indicated he/she required one-on-one supervision, set up, and eating assistance for all meals. Multiple random observations from 12/17/24 through 12/18/24 revealed: -12/17/24 at 10:21 AM Resident 29 was observed sitting upright in bed with a cup of ice cream placed directly in front of him/her on an overbed table without supervision. -12/17/24 at 12:28 PM Resident 29 was observed sitting upright in bed with a lunch tray placed directly in front of him/her on an overbed table without supervision during mealtimes. -12/18/24 at 8:27 AM Resident 29 was observed sitting upright in bed with a breakfast tray…
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 · D2024-12-19 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to obtain a physician order for a respiratory device and ensure resident respiratory equipment was maintained for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#14) reviewed for respiratory care. This placed residents at risk for increased respiratory concerns. Findings include: Resident 14 was admitted to the facility in 12/2024 with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease and obstructive sleep apnea. The Annual MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident 14 did not utilize a CPAP (continuous positive airway pressure) machine . A review of physician orders from 12/2024 revealed Resident 14 had no orders for use of a CPAP machine. A review of Resident 14's Care Plan and TAR from 12/2024 revealed no instructions for maintenance of the CPAP machine. On 12/17/24 at 10:41 AM Staff 5 (LPN) indicated Resident 14 used her/his CPAP machine at night. Staff 5 stated Resident 14 used her/his CPAP machine since her/his admission date and Staff 5 had cleaned it with distilled…
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 · D2024-12-19 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — isolatedDispose of garbage and refuse properly.
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 the garbage area dumpsters were covered and free from debris for 1 of 1 facility dumpster reviewed for sanitation. This placed residents at risk for exposure to used medical supplies. Findings include: The facility's undated Food/Waste Disposal policy specified the following: -Dumpster lids are to be closed at all times. -Dumpster and dumpsite area is to be kept clean and free of debris. On 12/16/24 at 9:39 AM the garbage dumpster located adjacent to the kitchen's side doorway (below the facility's E hall) was observed to be open with used examination gloves, sweetener packets, paper towels, and plastic spoons scattered on the ground at the base. A CNA stood on the railed walkway above the dumpster and threw a clear plastic bag over the railing into the dumpster. Staff 7 (Dietary Manager) stated the lid was always open to allow CNAs to throw waste into the dumpster from the end of the E hallway above. She stated this was the reason for the garbage on the ground and she cleaned it every…
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 · E2024-01-12 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — patternSafeguard 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 interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure records were accurate for 4 of 4 sampled residents (#s 8, 18, 25 and 26) reviewed for Advance Directives. This placed residents at risk for inaccurate medical interventions. Findings include: 1. Resident 8 was admitted to the facility in 9/2023 with diagnoses including Parkinson's disease. A 12/19/23 Multidisciplinary Care Conference report documented Resident 8 had an Advance Directive and a copy was in the clinical records. On 1/9/23 at 1:26 PM Staff 12 (Social Services Director) confirmed Resident 8 was documented as having a copy of an Advance Directive on file with the facility, but Resident 8 did not have an Advance Directive on file at the facility. On 1/9/23 at 2:33 PM Resident 8 stated she/he did not have an Advance Directive and did not provide an Advance Directive to the facility. 2. Resident 18 was admitted to the facility in 2/2020 with diagnoses including kidney failure. A 12/29/23 Multidisciplinary Care Conference report documented Resident 18 had an Advance Directive and a copy was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-01-12 · tag F0582 — isolatedGive residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide SNF ABN (Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notice of Non-coverage) information for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#28) reviewed for beneficiary notification. This placed residents at risk for unknown financial liabilities. Findings include: Resident 28 was admitted to the facility in 10/2023 with diagnoses including a fractured sacrum (back portion of the pelvis). A 12/12/23 NOMNC (Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage) indicated Resident 28's skilled days ended on 12/20/23. Review of Resident 28's health record indicated the resident remained in the facility and paid for her/his care with private funds. There was no documentation indicating Advance Beneficiary Notification information was provided to the resident so she/he understood what her/his daily out-of-pocket costs were. On 1/9/24 at 1:12 PM Staff 1 (Administrator) confirmed the facility failed to provide Advanced Beneficiary Notice information to Resident 28.
- Potential for harm · D2024-01-12 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure dependent residents received showers for 1 of 4 sampled residents (#13) reviewed for ADLs. This placed residents at risk for unmet ADL needs and loss of dignity. Findings include: Resident 13 was admitted to the facility in 12/2023 with diagnoses including multiple sclerosis (a progressive neurological disorder). Resident 13's 12/5/23 Bathing Care Plan indicated Resident 13 required assistance from one staff for bathing. Resident 13 preferred showers on scheduled bathing days. The facility's 1/11/24 shower schedule revealed Resident 13 received showers twice a week on Sundays and Thursdays. Resident 13's 12/14/23 through 1/7/24 bathing task logs indicated the resident received a bed bath or shower on the following days: - 12/14, 12/17, 12/25 and 1/7. A review of Resident 13's Progress Notes from 12/14/23 through 1/7/24 revealed no documentation Resident 13 was provided with additional bathing opportunities when bathing was not provided. On 1/8/24 at 11:48 AM Witness 4 (Family) reported Resident 13…
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 · D2024-01-12 · 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 observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide appropriate and sufficient supervision and ensure interventions were followed to reduce the risk of accidents for 1 of 4 sampled residents (#14) reviewed for nutrition. This placed residents at risk for choking and aspiration. Findings include: Resident 14 was admitted to the facility in 12/2023 with diagnoses including stroke. Resident 14's 12/14/23 Physician Orders directed the following precautions related to the prevention of aspiration: -Provide oral care before eating or drinking, clearing secretions from the oral cavity and moistening the mouth. -Upright positioning as close as possible to a 90-degree angle. -No straws. Resident 14's 12/20/23 admission MDS revealed the resident experienced short and long term memory loss, experienced some difficulty in decision making when faced with new tasks or situations and required partial/moderate assistance with eating. The MDS also indicated the resident held food in her/his mouth/cheeks or residual food was present in her/his mouth…
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 · D2024-01-12 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such services.
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 conduct timely post-dialysis assessments for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#9) reviewed for dialysis. This placed residents at risk for unidentified complications of dialysis treatment. Findings include: Resident 9 was admitted to the facility in 12/2023 with diagnoses including diabetes and end stage kidney disease with dependence on dialysis (procedure to remove waste products from the blood). Resident 9's 12/5/23 Dialysis Care Plan indicated the resident received dialysis three times per week, had an AV fistula (a procedure that connects an artery to a vein for dialysis) in her/his left upper extremity and post-dialysis assessments were completed in order to monitor the fistula for any bleeding or swelling. On 1/10/24 at 11:54 AM Resident 9 was observed being escorted by a CNA to her/his room upon returning from dialysis. Continuous observations on 1/10/24 between 11:54 AM and 12:58 PM revealed nursing staff did not complete a post-dialysis assessment of Resident 9 upon her/his return from…
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 · D2024-01-12 · tag F0712 — isolatedEnsure that the resident and his/her doctor meet face-to-face at all required visits.
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 residents were seen by a physician at least once every 60 days for 1 of 5 sampled residents (#15) reviewed for medications. This placed residents at risk for unassessed and unmet needs. Findings include: Resident 15 was admitted to the facility in 4/2021 with diagnoses including Parkinson's disease. Review of Resident 15's 2023 health record revealed the resident's physician visits occurred on 5/6/23 and 10/10/23. On 1/11/24 at 10:27 AM Staff 5 (RNCM) stated she was aware physician visits were required at least once every 60 days. Staff 5 reviewed Resident 15's health record and confirmed the physician visits occurred only twice in 2023. On 1/11/24 at 1:08 PM Staff 2 (DNS) was notified of the findings of this investigation, acknowledged she was aware of the resident's situation and did not provide evidence to indicate Resident 15 was seen by the physician every 60 days. the facility proactively addressed the lack of physician visits.
- Potential for harm · D2024-01-12 · tag F0825 — isolatedProvide or get specialized rehabilitative services as required for a resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide physical therapy services as ordered for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#13) reviewed for rehabilitation services. This placed residents at risk for reduced mobility and quality of life. Findings include: Resident 13 was admitted to the facility in 12/2023 with diagnoses including multiple sclerosis (a progressive neurological disorder). Resident 13's 12/5/23 Physician Order indicated the resident was to be evaluated and treated by PT. Resident 13's 12/5/23 Physical Therapy Evaluation and Plan of Care indicated the resident was to receive PT treatment five times a week from 12/6/23 through 3/13/24. Resident 13's PT Service Log Matrix from 12/17/23 through 12/31/23 indicated the resident received six of ten treatment sessions. On 1/8/24 at 12:24 PM Witness 4 (Family) stated the week before, during and after Christmas, Resident 13 did not receive physical therapy services at the frequency ordered because the rehabilitation department was short staffed. Witness 4 stated Resident 13 laid in her/his bed for…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-01-12 · 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 appropriate disinfection of a shared glucometer (a device used to obtain blood sugar levels) for 3 of 5 sampled residents (#s 9, 25 and 196) observed for CBG monitoring. This placed residents at risk for the spread of bloodborne infection. Findings include: The CDC website, section titled Infection Prevention during Blood Glucose Monitoring and Insulin Administration specified there was an increased risk for exposure to bloodborne viruses through contaminated equipment, such as glucometers, when shared. Using a [glucometer] for more than one person without cleaning and disinfecting it in between uses contributed to transmission of HBV (Hepatitis B virus). [Glucometers] should be cleaned and disinfected after every use. The facility's 8/2016 Obtaining a Fingerstick Glucose Level Policy & Procedure specified the following steps in the procedure: - place the equipment on the over-bed table upon a clean/protective surface; - ensure the glucometer has been disinfected before use; - obtain a…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- 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
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to MARQUIS COMPANIES — 15 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 | 5 of 5 | 4.3 | +0.7 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 5 of 5 | 3.8 | +1.2 vs chain |
| Staffing | 5 of 5 | 4.4 | +0.6 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 3.2 | -0.2 vs chain |
The other 14 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.3★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MARQUIS COMPANIES I, INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 07/01/2004 |
| FOGG, PHILLIP | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 07/01/2004 |
| BUCHER, AMY | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 11/01/2008 |
| FOGG, STEVEN | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 07/01/2004 |
| TONE, STACI | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 07/01/2004 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 10 rows in the source record cover these 5 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $382K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
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 385218. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-05-22, 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.