Rose City Nursing And Rehabilitation
11325 NE Weidler Street, Portland, OR 97220 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 55 certified beds · (503) 231-0276 Medicaid only — no Medicare
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- 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
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) | 4 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 | 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 | 21.1% | 14.9% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 1.1% | 4.7% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.4% | 1.4% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 2.0% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 6.6% | 4.9% | 6.5% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 2.9% | 2.4% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 11.3% | 20.6% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 10.1% | 12.4% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 5.0% | 5.8% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 23.0% | 21.8% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 24.6% | 13.9% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.4% | 1.4% | 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.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.09 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 5% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 4% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| 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 | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| 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 | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
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 55 beds and averages 51.4 residents a day — about 93% occupied, or roughly 4 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 5.30 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.65 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.79 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 4.95 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.45 on weekdays — 9% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.79 to 0.30 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
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.
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 before2024-03-08 · 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 ensure bowel status was assessed and a bowel care medication regimen was administered as ordered for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#1) reviewed for bowel care. Resident 1 developed abdominal pain, was admitted to the hospital and required surgery to remove part of the large intestine due to impaction (hardened stool stuck in the rectum or lower colon due to chronic constipation-occurs when constipated for a long time) and a colostomy (surgical procedure used to bring the healthy end of the large intestine through the abdominal wall for feces to leave the body) was placed. Findings include: Resident 1 was admitted to the facility 10/4/23 with diagnoses including developmental delay and stroke. An 10/3/23 hospital physician Progress Note revealed Resident 1 had a diagnosis of severe constipation, chronic-improved and had a history of chronic constipation with past frequent admissions. The resident was to continue senna (laxative) and Miralax (Miralax) at a high frequency in the hopes of getting more doses in…
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 · Fcited before2025-02-26 · tag F0727 — failed to provide required RN coverage — widespreadHave a registered nurse on duty 8 hours a day; and select a registered nurse to be the director of nurses on a full time basis.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure an RN was available for at least eight consecutive hours per day, seven days per week for 33 of 61 days reviewed for staffing. This placed residents at risk for lack of timely RN assessments and care. Findings include: The facility's Staffing, Sufficient and Competent Nursing Policy, last revised 8/2022, indicated the following: -A registered nurse provided services at least eight consecutive hours every 24 hours, seven days a week. A review of the facility's DCSDRs (Direct Care Staff Daily Reports) revealed the following: In 7/2024, nine days were reviewed and revealed four days without appropriate RN coverage on 7/16/24, 7/20/24, 7/22/24 and 7/23/24. In 8/2024, 22 days were reviewed and revealed 12 days without appropriate RN coverage on 8/4/24, 8/5/24, 8/6/24, 8/10/24, 8/11/24, 8/12/24, 8/13/24, 8/17/24, 8/18/24, 8/19/24, 8/20/24 and 8/24/24. In 9/2024, 30 days were reviewed and revealed 17 days without appropriate RN coverage on 9/1/24, 9/3/24, 9/8/24, 9/9/24, 9/10/24, 9/11/24, 9/14/24, 9/15/24,…
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 · F2025-02-26 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure 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 food and beverages were labeled and stored in a manner to minimize spoilage and cross contamination for 4 of 4 kitchen refrigerators and 1 of 1 unit refrigerator reviewed for sanitary conditions. This placed residents at risk for foodborne illness. Findings include: Review of the US FDA 2022 Food Code indicated the following: -Food prepared and held cold must be clearly marked with date prepared or by day which the food shall be consumed or discarded. -Food must be labeled with a use-by-date if stored for at least 24 hours. -Food could be stored up to seven days. The facility's Food Receiving and Storage Policy, last revised 10/2017, revealed the following: -Foods shall be received and stored in a manner that complies with safe food handling practices. -All foods stored in the refrigerator or freezer will be covered, labeled and dated (use by date). -All food belonging to residents must be labeled with the resident's name, the item and the use by date. -Beverages must be dated 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 · Ecited before2025-02-26 · tag F0679 — failed to provide activities — patternProvide activities to meet all resident's needs.
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 an ongoing person-centered activity program for 3 of 3 sampled residents (#s 5,10 and 20) reviewed for activities. This placed residents at risk of a decline in psychosocial well-being and diminished quality of life. Findings include: The facility's Activity Programs-Staffing Policy, revised 6/2018, indicated the following: The activity director/coordinator's responsibilities included the following: -completing or delegating the completion of the activities component of the comprehensive assessment; -ensuring activity goals and approaches reflected in the residents' care plans were individualized to match the skills, abilities and interests/preferences of each resident; -monitoring and evaluating the residents' responses to activities and revising the approaches as appropriate; -developing, implementing, supervising and evaluating activity programs at least quarterly; -sufficient activity personnel were on duty 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.
- Potential for harm · E2025-02-26 · tag F0680 — patternEnsure the activities program is directed by a qualified professional.
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 a qualified professional to direct the activities program for 1 of 1 facility reviewed for activities. This placed residents at risk for unmet physical, mental and psychosocial needs. Findings include: On 2/25/25 at 10:17 AM Staff 11 (Activity Director/Social Services Director) stated one of his roles at the facility was to organize and lead activities. Staff 11 stated he was told a certification was not necessary to performed the duties of an Activity Director and confirmed he had not started or completed the necessary training required. On 2/26/25 at 1:11 PM Staff 1 (Administrator) confirmed Staff 11 did not have the necessary Activity Director certification.
- Potential for harm · E2025-02-26 · 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 properly dispose of expired medications for 1 of 1 resident medication storage refrigerators and 1 of 1 medical storage rooms reviewed for medication storage. This placed residents at risk for lack of medication efficacy and adverse reactions from expired medications. Findings include: The facility's Storage of Medications policy with revision date 11/2020 did not address vials of medications but indicated outdated medications were to be destroyed by the facility. The manufacturer insert indicated an open and in use multi-dose vial of Tuberculin should be thrown away after 30 days to avoid oxidation and degradation. During a review of the resident medication storage refrigerator on 2/24/25 at 11:33 AM Staff 12 (LPN) verified the following expired medication was found: - one open and used multi-dose vial of Tuberculin (solution used in testing for Tuberculosis) with an open date of 1/22/25. On 2/24/25 at 11:36 AM Staff 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 · D2025-02-26 · 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 records review it was determined the facility failed to assess safety with smoking for 1 of 1 resident (#19) reviewed for smoking. This placed residents at risk for unsafe smoking. Findings include: The facilities 8/2022 Smoking Policy for Residents states resident smoking status is evaluated upon admission. If a smoker, the evaluation includes: - current level of tobacco consumption; - method of tobacco consumption; - desire to quit smoking; and - ability to smoke safely with or without supervision (per a completed Safe Smoking Evaluation). Resident 19 was admitted to the facility in 1/2025 which diagnoses including congestive heart failure. A review of Resident 19's clinical record revealed no indication a smoking assessment was completed or if the resident was an independent smoker. On 2/23/25 at 10:07 AM a list of residents who smoke was received from Staff 1 (Administrator) and Resident 19 was not included on the list. On 2/25/25 at 12:15 PM Resident 19 was observed independently entering the smoking area with smoking supplies. On 2/25/25 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 · D2025-02-26 · 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 ensure dialysis services were in place including monitoring and communication with the dialysis provider for 1 of 1 sampled resident (# 20) reviewed for dialysis. This placed residents at risk for dialysis complications and delayed treatment. Findings include: Resident 20 was admitted to the facility in 8/2024 with diagnoses including diabetes, end-stage renal disease and dependence on dialysis (a medical treatment that removes waste products from the blood when the kidneys are not working properly). Resident 20's 8/18/24 admission MDS indicated the resident had no cognitive impairments and received dialysis. Resident 20's 1/26/25 Dialysis Care Plan indicated the resident received dialysis on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. From 2/1/25 through 2/25/25, Resident 20 had 10 dialysis treatments. A review of Resident 20's Dialysis Communication Forms from 2/1/25 through 2/25/25 revealed the following days when the facility did not have pre-dialysis and post-dialysis information: -2/4/25, 2/6/25 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 · D2024-03-08 · tag F0625 — isolatedNotify the resident or the resident’s representative in writing how long the nursing home will hold the resident’s bed in cases of transfer to a hospital or therapeutic leave.
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 representative was provided written notice of the facility bed hold policy for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#1) reviewed for bowel care. This placed residents and responsible parties at risk for lack of knowledge related to rights to return to the facility. Findings include: Resident 1 was admitted to the facility in 2023 with a diagnosis of a stroke. Resident 1's record revealed she/he had an appointed guardian. A Bed-Holds and Returns policy last revised 3/2022 revealed residents were to receive written information in the admission packet about the bed-hold policy and within 24 hours of an emergency transfer. Progress Notes revealed Resident 1 was sent to the emergency department on 2/21/24. The notes indicated the guardian was contacted on 2/27/24, the guardian reported she/he wanted the facility to hold the resident's bed and was then was notified by the facility she/he would be financially responsible to place a hold for the resident's bed. The 2/28/24 note indicated the guardian…
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 · Fcited before2023-10-20 · tag F0727 — failed to provide required RN coverage — widespreadHave a registered nurse on duty 8 hours a day; and select a registered nurse to be the director of nurses on a full time basis.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure an RN worked eight consecutive hours per day seven days per week for 46 of 97 days reviewed for RN coverage. This placed residents at risk for lack of RN oversight including resident assessment, care and services. Findings include: Review of the Direct Care Staff Daily Reports from 1/1/23 through 1/25/23, 2/19/23 through 2/28/23, 3/1/23 through 3/31/23 and 9/16/23 through 10/16/23 revealed the following days in 2023 with no RN coverage for eight consecutive hours: -January: 1, 2, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 22, 23 and 24. -February: 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28. -March: 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31. -September: 17. -October: 1, 8 and 15. On 10/18/23 at 1:10 PM Staff 1 (Administrator) and Staff 5 (HR/Hiring Specialist) confirmed the facility lacked RN coverage on the identified dates.
- Potential for harm · E2023-10-20 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — patternEnsure 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 failed to ensure residents were free from medication error rates of five percent or greater for 4 of 6 sampled residents (#s 2, 4, 10 and 15) reviewed for medication administration. The facility's medication error rate was 18.5 percent. This placed residents at risk for adverse medication consequences. Findings include: 1. Resident 10 was admitted to the facility in 2022 with diagnoses including rib fractures. Resident 10's 10/2023 MAR included a physician's order for morphine sulphate (narcotic pain medication) 5 mg TID at 8:00 AM, 2:00 PM and 8:00 PM. On 10/18/23 at 10:15 AM Staff 8 (CMA) administered 5 mg of morphine sulphate to Resident 10. On 10/18/23 at 1:10 PM Staff 8 acknowledged the morphine sulphate was administered late. On 10/18/23 at 1:15 PM Staff 2 (DNS) stated the expectation was for medications to be administered within one hour before or after the scheduled administration times. 2. Resident 2 was readmitted to the facility 2023 with diagnoses including hip pain and palliative care.…
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 · E2023-10-20 · tag F0947 — failed to train nurse aides adequately — patternEnsure nurse aides have the skills they need to care for residents, and give nurse aides education in dementia care and abuse prevention.
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 CNA staff received 12 hours of in-service training annually for 2 of 5 randomly selected staff members (#s 13 and 14) reviewed for evidence of in-service training. This placed residents at risk for lack of quality care. Findings include: On 10/19/23 at 12:29 PM Staff 10 (Business Office Manager) provided a list of training hours for the sampled staff and confirmed the following: -Staff 13 (CNA): 0 annual training hours; -Staff 14 (CNA): 3 annual training hours. On 10/20/23 at 10:30 AM Staff 1 (Administrator) was notified of the findings of this investigation and acknowledged Staff 13 and Staff 14 lacked the required 12 hours of annual training.
- Potential for harm · D2023-10-20 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the 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 notify the physician of a worsening wound and weight loss for 2 of 2 sampled residents (#18 and #72) reviewed for wounds and nutrition. This placed residents at risk for inappropriate treatment, delayed healing and weight loss. Findings include: 1. Resident 72 was admitted to the facility in 2003 with diagnoses including stroke. Resident 72's Progress Notes from 9/21/22 through 10/7/22 revealed the following: - On 9/22/22 the resident's right big toenail was loose and bleeding after the resident's sock was removed. The provider gave treatment orders to apply a band-aid to secure the nail and change the band-aid daily. - On 9/27/22 the resident's toenail was coming off while in the shower with a moderate amount of bleeding. Pressure was applied, cleaned with wound cleanser and wrapped with gauze bandage wrap. A referral was received for the resident to be seen by a podiatrist. No notification to the physician or request for new treatment orders was found in the resident's clinical record. - On 9/30/22 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 · D2023-10-20 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations and interviews it was determined the facility failed to maintain a homelike environment for 1 of 1 facility reviewed for environment. This placed residents at risk for living in an unkempt environment. Findings include: Observations of the facility's general environment and residents' rooms from 10/17/23 through 10/20/23 identified the following issues: -rooms [ROOM NUMBERS] had missing light covers on their walls. -rooms [ROOM NUMBERS] had missing portions of blinds on the windows. -room [ROOM NUMBER]'s sink had pulled away from the wall approximately 1 inch leaving a gap between the sink and wall. -The wood frame of the awning covering the outdoor smoking area had a broken [NAME] and rotten wood. -The wooden threshold between a door and the smoking area had a two inch gap where the wood was missing. The remaining wood of the threshold contained divots and was missing paint. On 10/19/23 at 11:20 AM a facility walk through was completed with Staff 1 (Administrator) and Staff 6 (Maintenance…
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 · D2023-10-20 · tag F0636 — isolatedAssess the resident completely in a timely manner when first admitted, and then periodically, at least every 12 months.
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 comprehensively assess a resident for dementia for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#8) reviewed for dementia. This placed residents at risk for unmet care needs. Findings include: Resident 8 was admitted to the facility in 2022 with diagnoses including stroke and dementia. Resident 8's 8/28/23 CAA for Cognitive Loss/Dementia failed to indicate specifically how dementia was a problem for the resident, how the resident's dementia manifested, the impact on the resident or a rationale for the care planning decision. On 10/19/23 at 9:48 AM the CAA was reviewed with Staff 1 (Administrator), Staff 2 (DNS) and Staff 3 (Regional RN Consultant) who acknowledged the assessment was not comprehensive.
- Potential for harm · D2023-10-20 · tag F0637 — isolatedAssess the resident when there is a significant change in condition
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 timely assess a resident for a significant change in condition for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#8) reviewed for dementia, hospice and unnecessary medications. This placed residents at risk for unmet care needs. Findings include: Resident 8 was admitted to the facility in 2022 with diagnoses including stroke and dementia. A physician's order dated 8/11/23 indicated Resident 8 was admitted to hospice on 8/11/23. Resident 8's significant change in status MDS was dated 8/28/23. On 10/19/23 at 9:48 AM the MDS assessment date was reviewed with Staff 1 (Administrator), Staff 2 (DNS) and Staff 3 (Regional RN Consultant) who acknowledged the assessment was completed late.
- Potential for harm · D2023-10-20 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
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 accurately assess a resident for behaviors for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#8) reviewed for dementia. This placed residents at risk for unmet care needs. Findings include: Resident 8 was admitted to the facility in 2022 with diagnoses including stroke and dementia. Resident 8's 8/28/23 MDS indicated the resident had no indicators for psychosis or behavioral symptoms. Resident 8's 10/19/23 Care Plan indicated the resident's behavior was monitored due to the resident's tendency to yell aggressively, curse, engage in inappropriate behavior toward female staff and argue with her/his roommate. On 10/19/23 at 9:48 AM Staff 1 (Administrator), Staff 2 (DNS) and Staff 3 (Regional RN Consultant) verified Resident 8's care plan was accurate, the resident was on behavior monitoring and the MDS assessment was not correct.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-10-20 · 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
Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide wound care and obtain physician's orders for wound care for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#72) reviewed for wounds. This placed residents at risk for infection and delayed healing. Findings include: Resident 72 was admitted to the facility in 2003 with diagnoses including stroke. Resident 72's Progress Notes from 9/21/22 through 10/7/22 revealed the following: - On 9/22/22 the resident's right big toenail was loose and bleeding after the resident's sock was removed. The provider gave treatment orders to apply a band-aid to secure the nail and change the band-aid daily. - On 9/27/22 the resident's toenail was coming off while in the shower with a moderate amount of bleeding. Pressure was applied, cleaned with wound cleanser and wrapped with gauze bandage wrap. A referral was received for the resident to be seen by a podiatrist. No notification to the physician or request for new treatment orders was found in the resident's clinical record. - On 9/30/22 no signs of infection were noted to the resident'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 · D2023-10-20 · 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 observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to assess and monitor weight loss for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#18) reviewed for nutrition. This placed residents at risk for unidentified weight changes. Findings include: Resident 18 was admitted to the facility in 7/2023 with diagnoses including brain damage. Review of weight records from 8/2023 through 10/2023 revealed Resident 18 weighed 127.4 on 8/9/23. On 10/15/23 Resident 18 weighed 113.1 pounds which was an 11.22% weight loss. Review of Resident 18's Dietary Orders from 8/2023 through 10/2023 revealed only a single change was made on 8/25/23 with an increase of banana flakes given twice a day to three times a day. No other dietary changes were made for Resident 18. On 10/19/23 at 10:48 AM Staff 2 (DNS) stated Resident 18's weight loss was unplanned and dietary modification were not attempted to appropriately address this unplanned weight loss. On 10/19/23 at 2:23 PM Staff 16 (Dietary Manager) confirmed no additional changes after 8/25/23 were made for Resident 18's dietary orders…
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 before2023-10-20 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolatedEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure pharmacist recommendations were addressed for 2 of 5 sampled residents (#s 8 and 9) reviewed for unnecessary medications. This placed residents at risk for unnecessary medications. Findings include: 1. Resident 8 was admitted to the facility in 2022 with diagnoses including anemia. Monthly pharmacist reviews of Resident 8's medication regimen revealed the following: - On 8/7/23 the pharmacist recommended the resident's vitamin B12 supplement be discontinued because a 7/14/23 laboratory test indicated the resident's B12 level was 695 (normal range is 160 to 950). - On 9/11/23 the pharmacist made a repeat recommendation to discontinue the vitamin B12. - On 10/9/23 the pharmacist made a repeat recommendation to discontinue the vitamin B12. Resident 8's clinical record revealed no indication the pharmacist's repeated recommendations to discontinue the vitamin B12 were followed up. On 10/19/23 at 11:48 AM Staff 2 (DNS) stated she had no explanation for why the pharmacist's recommendations were 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 · D2023-10-20 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolatedEnsure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs.
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 discontinue a medication per physician's order for 1 of 5 sampled residents (#8) reviewed for unnecessary medications. This placed residents at risk for adverse medication consequences. Findings include: Resident 8 was admitted to the facility in 2022 with diagnoses including anemia. Resident 8's 10/2023 MAR revealed the resident had a physician's order for vitamin B12 daily with a start date of 10/8/23. The MAR revealed the vitamin B12 was administered from 10/1/23 through 10/19/23. A physician's order dated 10/10/23 indicated the vitamin B12 was discontinued. On 10/19/23 at 11:48 AM Staff 2 (DNS) and Staff 15 (RNCM) verified the vitamin B12 should have been discontinued on 10/10/23 and was administered to the resident from 10/10/23 through 10/19/23.
- Potential for harm · D2023-10-20 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
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 PRN psychotropic medications were ordered with duration of treatment and rationale for 2 of 5 sampled residents (#s 8 and 9) reviewed for unnecessary medications. This placed residents at risk for unnecessary psychotropic medications. Findings include: 1. Resident 8 was admitted to the facility in 2022 with diagnoses including stroke and dementia. Resident 8's 10/2023 MAR revealed the resident had a physician's order for lorazepam (antianxiety medication) PRN with a start date of 8/14/23 and was discontinued on 10/10/23. A pharmacist's recommendation dated 10/9/23 indicated Resident 8 needed to be evaluated in person by the physician, document a rationale and duration to extend the PRN lorazepam beyond 14 days. The physician's response, to the pharmacist's recommendation, dated 10/10/23 indicated Continue for 90 days with a rationale Hospice Care Package. On 10/19/23 at 12:41 PM Staff 1 (Administrator) acknowledged the rationale to continue the lorazepam was not adequate. 2. Resident 9 was admitted…
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 · D2023-10-20 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
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 free from significant medication errors for 1 of 5 sampled residents (#8) reviewed for unnecessary medications. This placed residents at risk for adverse medication consequences. Findings include: Resident 8 was admitted to the facility in 2022 with diagnoses including high blood pressure. Resident 8's 9/2023 and 10/2023 MARs revealed the resident had a physician's order for metoprolol (treats high blood pressure) with a start date of 2/18/23 and parameters to not administer the medication if the resident's heart rate was less than 60. The MARs indicated the resident's heart rate was less than 60 and the medication was administered on: 9/2/23, 9/3/23, 9/5/23, 9/9/23, 9/20/23, 9/27/23, 9/23/23, 10/2/23, 10/3/23, 10/5/23, 10/7/23, 10/17/23 and 10/19/23. On 10/20/23 at 10:25 AM and 10:31 AM Staff 15 (RNCM) and Staff 2 (DNS) acknowledged the metoprolol should not have been administered when the resident's heart rate was less than 60.
- Potential for harm · D2023-10-20 · 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 interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure records were accurate for 2 of 5 sampled residents (#s 3 and 8) reviewed for hospice and unnecessary medications. This placed resident at risk for inaccurate treatment. Findings include: 1. Resident 8 was admitted to the facility in 2022 with diagnoses including stroke and dementia. A physician's order dated 8/11/23 indicated Resident 8 was admitted to hospice on 8/11/23 with a terminal diagnosis of unspecified illness. On 10/19/23 at 9:48 AM Staff 1 (Administrator) acknowledged the resident's hospice admission order did not include a qualifying terminal diagnosis for admission to hospice. 2. Resident 3 was admitted to the facility in 2003 with diagnoses including diabetes. Resident 3's 10/2023 signed Physician Orders indicated as of 11/2022 the resident was to have a Hemoglobin A1C lab test (blood test that measures blood sugar levels over a three month period) completed every six months due to long-term psychotropic medication use. A 5/5/23 progress note indicated Resident 3's Hemoglobin A1C lab…
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 · D2022-10-07 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
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 call light was within reach for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#16) reviewed for accommodation of needs. This placed residents at risk for delayed assistance and unmet needs. Findings include: Resident 16 admitted to the facility in 2/2002 with diagnoses including amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (a nuerological disease that affects the nerve cells). Resident 16's 8/31/22 Quarterly MDS noted a BIMS score of 15 (cognitively intact). A 9/25/22 Nursing re-admission Assessment noted Resident 16 was able to make her/his needs known and to have the call light in reach. Resident 16's care plan (completion date of 10/5/22) indicated staff were to reinforce the need for the resident to call for assistance as an intervention related to impaired mobility. On 10/3/22 at 3:10 PM Resident 16's call light was observed to be out of her/his reach. Resident 16 stated the call light was regularly outside of her/his reach. Observations on 10/4/22 at 12:41 PM and 2:02 PM and on 10/5/22 at 11:01 AM noted 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 · D2022-10-07 · 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 obtain information related to advance directives and healthcare decisions for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#17) reviewed for advance directive. This placed residents at risk for not having their healthcare decisions honored. Findings include: Resident 17 was admitted to the facility in 9/2021 with diagnoses including congestive heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (lung disease that causes obstructive airflow from the lungs). On 9/22/21 Resident 17 signed an advance directive attestation form upon admission which stated she/he wished for an advance directive to be completed and provided to the facility. Resident 17's care plan dated 1/2022 revealed Resident 17 wished to have her/his family involved with writing an advance directive. No evidence was found in Resident 17's clinical record to indicate the resident was provided with an opportunity to formulate an advance directive. On 10/5/22 at 11:27 AM Staff 3 (DNS) confirmed no follow up was performed regarding Resident 17's wish to have 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 · Dcited before2022-10-07 · tag F0679 — failed to provide activities — isolatedProvide activities to meet all resident's needs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide a resident-centered activity program for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#12) reviewed for activities. This placed residents at risk for a diminished quality of life. Findings include: Resident 12 was readmitted in 7/2019 with diagnoses including vascular dementia with behavioral disturbance. The resident's 9/28/22 care plan indicated Resident 12 had a deficit in memory, judgement, decision making and thought process related to dementia. The resident had a communication impairment related to expressive and receptive aphasia (a disorder that affects how a person communicates). Ball toss, ring toss, church services and observing painting/arts/crafts were listed as activities of her/his preference. The care plan revealed Resident 12 enjoyed being part of most group activities and played bingo with assistance. Activity interventions included one-to-one visits as needed and providing the resident with verbal reminders of activities prior to activity start. The 10/4/22 activity calendar listed…
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 before2022-10-07 · 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 ensure physician orders were followed and failed to provide bowel care for 3 of 5 sampled residents (#s 3,18 and 21) reviewed for medications. This placed residents at risk for adverse medications consequences and a lack of identification of symptoms of COVID-19. Findings include: 1. Resident 21 was admitted to the facility in 2021 with diagnoses including pain. Resident 21's current Clinical Physician Orders included tramadol (narcotic pain medication) every eight hours PRN only for pain greater than 5 (on a one to ten scale). Resident 21's 9/2022 MAR revealed the tramadol was administered to the resident on 9/12/22, 9/18/22, 9/19/22, 9/24/22, 9/25/22 and 9/29/22 when the resident's pain was documented as five or less. On 10/6/22 at 10:47 AM Staff 3 (DNS) verified the tramadol order specified for pain greater than five and on the indicated dates the tramadol was administered when the resident's pain was five or less. 2. a. Resident 18 was admitted to the facility in 8/2022 with diagnoses including…
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 before2022-10-07 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolatedEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents medication regimen was reviewed by the licensed pharmacist at least monthly for 1 of 5 sampled residents (#21) reviewed for unnecessary medications. This placed residents at risk for adverse medication consequences. Findings include: Resident 21 was admitted to the facility in 2021 with diagnoses including borderline personality disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety, pain, insomnia and mood disorder. A review of Resident 21's clinical record and the facility's Consultant Pharmacist medication regimen review binder revealed no indication the resident's medication regimen was reviewed for 5/2022 and 6/2022. On 10/6/22 at 10:52 AM Staff 4 (Regional Nurse Consultant) confirmed Consultant Pharmacist reviews were supposed to be in the binder and acknowledged Resident 21's 5/2022 and 6/2022 reviews were not there. Staff 4 and Staff 3 (DNS) were asked to provide documentation to demonstrate the resident's medication regimen was reviewed in 5/2022 and 6/2022. No additional…
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 · D2022-10-07 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to address dental needs in a timely manner for 2 of 2 sampled residents (#s 17 and 21) reviewed for dental needs. This placed residents at risk for dental pain, ill-fitting dentures and weight loss. Findings include: 1. Resident 17 was admitted to the facility in 2021 with diagnoses including failure to thrive. Resident 17's dental care plan initiated on 9/17/21 indicated the resident had poor fitting dentures and the resident's lower denture would fall out when she/he was sleeping. Resident 17's 9/28/21 Dental Care CAA identified the resident had poor nutrition but did not assess the resident's loose denture or its potential impact on the resident's nutritional status. A Social Services Quarterly assessment dated [DATE] indicated the resident had no dental status changes and Staff 5 (SSD) would continue to monitor the resident for dental needs. Resident 17's weight record from 9/24/21 through 10/2/22 revealed the resident gained weight.…
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 · B2025-02-26 · tag F0623 — patternProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal 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 transfer notice with appeal rights was provided in writing to the resident or their representative, and the facility failed to ensure the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman was notified of the resident's hospitalization for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#3) reviewed for hospitalizations. This placed residents at risk for lack of access to an advocate to inform them of their options and rights, and lack of information regarding discharge. Findings include: The facility's Bed Hold Policy: Bed-Holds and Returns with revision date 10/2022 stated all residents of the facility were to be provided with written notice at least twice; once in the admission packet, and again at the time of transfer or if the transfer was an emergency within 24 hours. Resident 3 admitted to the facility in 1/2025 with diagnoses including hypothermia (body temperature too low) and sepsis (severe infection). A 1/29/25 admission MDS indicated Resident 3 was cognitively intact. A review of Resident 3's health record…
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 · B2025-02-26 · tag F0732 — patternPost nurse staffing information every day.
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 post accurate and complete staffing information for 1 of 1 facility reviewed for staffing. This placed residents and the public at risk for incomplete and inaccurate staffing information. Findings include: The facility's Staffing, Sufficient and Competent Nursing Policy, last revised 8/2022, indicated the following: -Direct care daily staffing numbers (the number of nursing personnel responsible for providing direct care to residents) were posted in the facility for every shift. A review of the facility's DCSDRs (Direct Care Staff Daily Reports) revealed the following: From 1/21/25 through 2/22/25, 32 days were reviewed and revealed 11 days when portions of the DCSDRs were incomplete or inaccurate on 1/23/25, 1/24/25, 1/29/25, 1/30/25, 1/31/25, 2/12/25, 2/13/25, 2/14/25, 2/20/25, 2/21/25 and 2/20/25. On 2/25/25 at 4:01 PM, Staff 1 (Administrator) and Staff 2 (Administrator-In-Training) reviewed the 1/21/25 through 2/22/25 DCSDRs and verified the reports were incomplete or inaccurate on 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.
“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
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
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 38E157. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-02-26, 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.