Rivers Edge Rehabilitation And Care
411 SE Sheridan Road, Sheridan, OR 97378 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 51 certified beds · (503) 843-2204 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- 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 an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Mar 2025
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (36) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its payroll- and facility-reported staffing and quality-measure scores sit well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (68%) runs well above the national median (45%)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing and quality-measure ratings run 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself, and staffing on its payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
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 | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 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 fell from 3 to 2 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 | 9.2% | 14.9% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.8% | 4.7% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 1.4% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 2.0% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 8.7% | 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 | 4.4% | 2.4% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 21.6% | 20.6% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 4.8% | 12.4% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.5% | 95.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.5% | 5.8% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 11.3% | 21.8% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 20.4% | 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 0.16 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 14% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 9% 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| 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 — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — Newly certified nursing home with less than 12-15 months of data available or the nursing home opened less than 6 months ago, and there were no data to submit or claims 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 51 beds and averages 37.9 residents a day — about 74% occupied, or roughly 13 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 5.79 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.81 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 4.22 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 5.11 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 6.07 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.90 to 0.59 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 68% is well above the national median of 45%. 2 administrators have left in the past year — frequent leadership churn is a warning sign families often miss.
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.
36 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 26 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-06-05 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide a clean and well-maintained homelike environment for 3 of 7 sampled residents (#s 5, 27, and 28) and 2 of 5 resident hallways reviewed for environment. This placed residents at risk for lack of a homelike environment. Findings include: 1. Resident 28 was admitted to the facility in 11/2025. On 6/1/26 at 12:10 PM, Witness 2 (Family Member) stated she/he was dissatisfied with the cleanliness and condition of Resident 28's room: the blinds were broken, there was a hole in the window frame leading directly to the outside, the floor was frequently dirty, and the resident's fall mat was dirty and sticky. Witness 2 stated the broken blinds and window frame hole were both present when the resident moved into the room, and she/he had spoken to the previous maintenance director about the need for repair. Resident 28's room was observed to have accumulated dirt and dust on the floor, particularly around the furniture and under the window. The window blinds were coated with dust and five of the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-06-05 · 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 kitchen staff wore appropriate hair restraints during meal preparation, provide a sanitary kitchen environment and ensure proper hand hygiene practices were followed for 1 of 1 facility kitchen reviewed for sanitation. This placed residents at risk for unsanitary foods and food-borne illness. Findings include:The facility's undated Food Preparation and Service policy indicated:-Food preparation staff are to adhere to proper hygiene and sanitary practices to prevent the spread of foodborne illnesses.-Bare hand contact with food is prohibited. Gloves are worn when handling food directly and changed between tasks. Disposable gloves are single-use items and discarded after each use.-Food and nutrition services staff wear hair restraints (hair net, hat, beard restraint, etc.) so that hair does not contact food.1. On 6/3/26 at 11:29 AM, Staff 9 (Cook) was observed working in the kitchen without a hair restraint. Staff 9's hair was pulled back into a braid, which was observed swinging onto the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2026-06-05 · tag F0925 — failed to control pests — patternMake sure there is a pest control program to prevent/deal with mice, insects, or other pests.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation and interview it was determined the facility failed to ensure the facility was free from pests for 1 of 1 sampled facility reviewed for environment. This placed residents at risk for a lack of sanitary conditions. Findings include: The facility's 5/2008 Pest Control policy indicated:-This facility maintains an on-going pest control program to ensure the building is kept free of insects and rodents.-Windows are screened at all times.On 6/1/26 at 12:13 PM observed an open bathroom window without a screen in room [ROOM NUMBER]. No insects were observed at that time.On 6/1/26 from 5:47 PM to 6:21 PM, during dinner in the main resident dining room, a window without a screen was open and a mosquito, unidentified large bug, and a fly were observed. Staff 14 (Social Services Director) closed the window and stated it was due to insects getting in through the window. Five windows in the dining room did not have screens. On 6/2/26 at 9:36 AM, a fly was observed on the surveyor's computer while in the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-06-05 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
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 allegations of abuse were reported timely for 1 of 6 sampled residents (#45) reviewed for accidents and abuse. This placed residents at risk for continued abuse. Findings include: The facility's Abuse Prevention Policy and Procedure, dated 6/12/18, indicated:-All incidents, accidents, and injuries of unknow origins such as bruising or skin tears, and resident-to-resident contacts will be identified through the 24-hour report and an incident report in order to initiate an investigation. The Administrator and the Director of Nursing will be notified.-Mandated Reporters are to immediately report to their onside supervisor and the State Hotline number be they have reasonable cause to believe abuse, neglect, involuntary seclusion, abandonment, or financial exploitation has occurred, or when they have reason to suspect an incident is sexual or physical assaults. The Director of Nursing and/or Administrator shall be immediately notified of all allegations of abuse and neglect. Resident 45 was admitted 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 · D2026-06-05 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
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 MDS was coded accurately related to oxygen and non-invasive mechanical ventilator for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#7) reviewed for respiratory care. This placed residents at risk for inaccurate assessments. Findings include:The facility's undated Quarterly Assessments policy revealed quarterly MDS assessments were conducted to track the resident's status between comprehensive assessments to ensure critical indicators of gradual change in a resident's status were monitored. Resident 7 was admitted to the facility in 7/2022 with diagnosis including obstructive sleep apnea, chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia and hypercapnia (the body's tissues do not receive enough oxygen and the lungs cannot effectively remove carbon dioxide leading to dangerous carbon dioxide buildup in the blood), and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD)A review of the 4/25/26 Quarterly MDS revealed the resident was not using oxygen or a BiPAP (Bilevel Positive Airway Pressure that delivers pressurized…
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 before2026-06-05 · 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 PRN insulin per physician orders for 1 of 5 sampled residents (#4) reviewed for unnecessary medications. This placed residents at risk for elevated blood sugars. Findings include: Resident 4 was admitted to the facility in 12/2023 with a diagnosis of diabetes. Resident 4's 6/24/25 Physician Orders revealed Insulin Lispro (fast acting insulin) was to administer every two hours PRN CBG greater than 400. Resident 4's PRN Insulin Lispro was not to be administered within two hours of her/his scheduled Lispro which was to be administered after meals. Resident 4's 5/2026 DAR (Diabetic Administration Record) revealed her/his CBG was greater than 400 on 5/1/26 at 1:00 PM, 5/7/26 at 9:00 AM, 5/12/26 at 12:00 PM and 6:26 PM, and 5/26/26 at 8:25 AM. Resident 4's DAR revealed staff did not administer the PRN Insulin Lispro. Resident 4's clinical record did not have documentation to indicate on 5/1/26, 5/7/26, 5/12/26, and 5/26/26 her/his CBG was rechecked after the CBGs were greater than 400. On 6/4/26 at 2:04…
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 before2026-06-05 · 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 ensure aspiration precautions were followed for 2 of 5 sampled resident (#s 38 and 44) reviewed for accidents. This placed residents at risk for adverse outcomes related to aspiration. Findings include: 1. Resident 38 was admitted to the facility in 9/2025 with a diagnosis of dysphagia (difficulty swallowing). Resident 38's 9/10/25 Speech Therapy Evaluation and Plan of Treatment revealed she/he had minimal signs of dysphagia but due to her/his cognitive status and confusion, she/he was not able to follow instructions for swallowing strategies. Resident 38 was assessed to not have signs of aspiration. Recommendations included she/he was to have close supervision for oral intake and be upright for meals. Resident 38's 9/10/25 in-room Aspiration Precautions Information sheet (posted above Resident 38's head of bed) did not instruct staff to provide supervision for meals. Resident 38's 2/23/26 Aspiration Precautions information sheet (located in the dining room in a binder) revealed she/he was 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 · Dcited before2026-06-05 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to maintain oxygen equipment for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#7) reviewed for oxygen therapy. This placed residents at risk for increased risk for respiratory failure. Findings include: Resident 7 was admitted to the facility in 7/2022 with diagnosis including obstructive sleep apnea, chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia and hypercapnia (the body's tissues do not receive enough oxygen and the lungs cannot effectively remove carbon dioxide leading to dangerous carbon dioxide buildup in the blood), and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD)A review of the 7/23/26 Annual MDS revealed Resident 7 had a BIMS of 15 indicating she/he was cognitively intact and it revealed Resident 7 utilized oxygen.The physician order, last signed on 5/31/26, revealed an order with a start date of 2/5/26 indicating Resident 7 was to receive continuous oxygen at two Liters per minute through nasal cannula (NC) or bled into the BiPAP.A review of 6/2026 TAR revealed to clean the oxygen concentrator and filter 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 · Dcited before2026-06-05 · tag F0745 — failed to provide medically-related social services — isolatedProvide medically-related social services to help each resident achieve the highest possible quality of life.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure a resident had transporation for dialysis for 1 of 1 sampled residents (#4) reviewed for dailysis. This placed residents at risk for fluid retention. Findings include: Resident 4 was admitted to the facility in 12/2023 with a diagnosis of kidney disease. Resident 4's [DATE] Annual MDS revealed she/he was cognitively intact. On [DATE] at 11:09 AM Resident 4 stated she/he did not go to dialysis on [DATE] because the facility did not set up transportation. On [DATE] at 4:12 PM Staff 14 (Social Services Director) stated the company that provided Resident 4 transportation to dialysis had a contracted schedule which needed to be renewed every 90 days. The contract was not renewed prior to expiration and Resident 4 missed dialysis on [DATE]. On [DATE] at 4:16 PM DNS stated the facility should always ensure the transportation contract was renewed before it expired to ensure a resident did not miss dialysis.
- Potential for harm · D2026-06-05 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolatedEnsure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure a resident's bowel care was held per physician orders and labs were monitored for 2 of 5 sampled residents (#2 and 4) This placed residents at risk for dehydration. Findings include: 1. Resident 2 was admitted to the facility in 7/2023 with a diagnosis of a genetic disorder characterized by chronic constipation. Resident 2's 7/2/24 Order Details revealed she/he was to be administered MiraLAX (laxative) every morning for constipation hold for loose stools. Resident 2's bowel care record from 5/5/26 through 6/3/26 revealed on 5/23/26 and 5/24/26 she/he had two loose each day. Resident 2's 5/2026 MAR revealed MiraLAX (was not held on 5/23/24, 5/24/26, or 5/26/26. On 6/3/26 atn12:34 PM Staff 21 (CMA) stated if a resident had an order to hold bowel medications for loose stools the medication should not be administered if a resident had a loose stool. Staff 21 stated CNAs notified her if a resident had a loose stool. On 6/3/26 at 3:43 PM Staff 2 (DNS) verified bowel care was not held when Resident 2 had…
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 26 citations
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-06-05 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility had a medication error rate of greater than 5%. The facility error rate was with 32 percent with 8 errors in 25 opportunities. This placed resident at risk for adverse medication regimen. Findings include: Resident 16 was admitted to the facility in 4/2026 with a diagnosis including diabetes. Resident 16's 4/27/26 admission MDS revealed she/he was cognitively intact On 6/2/26 at 8:56 AM Staff 19 (CMA) was observed to prepare Resident 16's medications, enter Resident 16's room, place her/his medicine cup with the prepared medications on her/his computer table, then Staff 19 exited her/his room. The medications which were left on the bedside table included: -amlodipine (treats high blood pressure)-atorvastatin (anti-lipid)-disulfiram (treats alcohol use disorder)-Biktarvy (anti-viral medication)-vitamin B12 (Supplement)-Farxiga (treats heart failure)-metformin (treats diabetes)-multvitamin (supplement)-Omeprozole (treats reflux disease)After Staff 19 left the room, this surveyor asked if Resident 16 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 · Ecited before2025-03-03 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure resident equipment, resident windows, walls, and bathroom lighting were in good working order and water was hot for 4 of 8 sampled residents (#s 6, 13, 22, and 26) reviewed for environment. This placed residents at risk for an unhomelike environment. Findings include: 1. Resident 6 was admitted to the facility in 12/2024 with diagnoses including dementia. On 2/26/25 at 12:00 PM, Resident 6's bathroom was observed to be dim with the light on. On 3/3/25 at 10:23 AM, Resident 6's bathroom was observed to be dark with the lights on. On 3/3/25 at 10:25 AM, Staff 13 (CNA) stated Resident 6 used the bathroom. Staff 13 stated the light had been dim for at least a week. On 3/3/25 at 10:38 AM Staff 5 (Maintenance Director) confirmed the bathroom light was dim and it was unsafe for a resident to go in there with the dim light. On 3/3/25 at 12:28 PM Resident 6 stated she/he took her/himself to the bathroom and had a difficult time seeing her/his way around in the bathroom. 2. Resident 13 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 · Ecited before2025-03-03 · 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 and interview it was determined the facility failed to store food in a sanitary manner for 1 of 1 resident refrigerator reviewed for food safety. This placed residents at risk for foodborne illnesses. Findings include: On 2/27/25 at 12:53 PM, a resident room refrigerator was observed with Staff 12 (Food Service Director) and observed the following: -An undated plate of meatballs. -An undated, uncovered bowel of pears. -A container of cottage cheese dated 2/12/25. -A sandwich dated 2/21/25. -An undated desert. -Two partial gallons chocolate milk with an expiration date of 2/7/25. -A jar of salsa with an expiration date of 2/20/25. -An open container of hot dogs with an expiration date of 1/16/25. -An open container of cole slaw with an expiration date of 2/20/25. -An open container of bologna with an expiration date of 2/18/25. -A green canister dated 11/14/23 with an unknown powder in it. -An undated pitcher with blue liquid in it labeled bowel prep with a resident's name on it. Staff 12 stated anything provided by the kitchen was dated and should be thrown out…
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 · E2025-03-03 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — patternDevelop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were offered pneumonia vaccines for 5 of 5 sampled residents (#s 19, 22, 26, 38, and 39) reviewed for vaccines. This places residents at risk for pneumonia. Findings include: 1. Resident 19 was admitted to the facility in 9/2022 with a diagnosis of Parkinson's disease. Resident 19's clinical record revealed she/he was eligible for, but was not offered a pneumonia vaccine. On 2/27/25 at 11:02 AM and at 11:26 AM, Staff 2 (DNS) verified resident 19 was eligible to receive a pneumonia vaccine. A request was made for Staff 2 to provide documentation a pneumonia vaccine was offered to Resident 19. No additional information was provided. 2. Resident 22 was admitted to the facility in 12/2024 with a diagnosis of diabetes. Resident 22's clinical record revealed she/he was eligible for, but was not offered a pneumonia vaccine. On 2/27/25 at 11:02 AM and at 11:26 AM, Staff 2 (DNS) verified Resident 22 was eligible to receive a pneumonia vaccine. A request was made for Staff 2 to provide documentation…
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 · E2025-03-03 · 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 provide dementia training for 5 of 5 sampled staff (#s 4, 9, 21, 22, and 23) reviewed for dementia training. This placed residents with dementia at risk of not receiving appropriate care and services to attain or maintain their highest practicable self. Findings include: A review of the facility's in-service records revealed dementia training was not completed by Staff 4 (CNA), Staff 9 (CNA), Staff 21 (CNA), Staff 22 (CNA), and Staff 23 (CNA) within the last 12 months. On 3/3/25 at 1:59 PM, Staff 1 (Administrator) confirmed the reviewed staff did not complete dementia training within the last 12 months.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-03-03 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, observation and record review it was determined the facility failed to follow resident rights for 2 of 2 sampled residents (#s 13 and 26) reviewed for resident rights and incontinence care. This placed residents at risk for lack of dignity. Findings include: 1. Resident 13 admitted to facility in 11/2023, with diagnoses including congestive heart failure (a progressive heart disease that affects pumping action of the heart muscles). A 12/2024 Annual MDS assessment revealed Resident 13 had a BIMS of 15 (cognitively intact). A review of Resident Council notes from 7/2024 revealed Resident 13's concerns about leaking briefs had been discussed at Resident Council and the facility response recorded was they would work to ensure the most appropriate product was used and supply an incontinence pad for Resident 13's wheelchair. A review of Resident 13's 8/2024 care plan revealed no changes were made related to incontinence. On [DATE] at 10:05 AM, Resident 13 stated her/his brief leaked when she/he…
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 · D2025-03-03 · tag F0552 — isolatedEnsure that residents are fully informed and understand their health status, care and treatments.
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 or resident's representative was provided the risk and benefits information for psychotropic medications prior to administration for 1 of 5 sampled residents (#9) reviewed for medications. This placed residents at risk for lack of informed consent. Findings include: Resident 9 was admitted to the facility in 6/2022 with a diagnosis of depression. A 1/17/25 hospice Certification and Plan of Care revealed Resident 9 was admitted to hospice services on 1/17/25. Orders indicated Abilify (an antipsychotic medication) was to be administered daily, Cymbalta (an antidepressant medication) was to be administered daily, and lorazepam (an antianxiety medication) was to be administered PRN for restlessness. Review of Resident 9's clinical record revealed no evidence of consent forms for the administration of Abilify, Cymbalta, or lorazepam. On 2/27/25 at 9:18 AM, Staff 8 (LPN) stated consents for psychotropic medications were to be obtained from residents prior to medication administration. On…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-03-03 · tag F0585 — failed to handle grievances — isolatedHonor the resident's right to voice grievances without discrimination or reprisal and the facility must establish a grievance policy and make prompt efforts to resolve grievances.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to follow up on grievances for 1 of 4 sampled residents (# 26) reviewed for staffing. This placed residents at risk for not having their needs addressed. Findings include: Resident 26 admitted to the facility in 12/2023 with diagnoses including heart failure. A 12/23/24 Annual MDS revealed Resident 26 had a BIMS of 15 which indicated she/he was cognitively intact. A 5/14/24 progress note revealed Resident 26 complained to Staff 7 (Social Services Director) about long call light times. Staff 7 told Resident 26 she would address the issue. A 5/24/24 progress note revealed Resident 26 complained to Staff 7 about long call light times and her/his room not being clean. Staff 7 told Resident 26 she would report the concerns to the appropriate people. A 5/29/24 progress note revealed Resident 26 complained to Staff 7 about food issues and long call light times. Staff 7 told Resident 26 she would report the concerns to the appropriate department. A 6/3/24 progress note revealed Resident 26 complained to Staff 7 about…
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 · D2025-03-03 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to protect the resident's right to be free from physical abuse by another resident for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#39) reviewed for abuse. This placed residents at risk for injury related to abuse. Findings include: Resident 39 was admitted to the facility in 9/2024 with diagnoses including post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Resident 20 was admitted to the facility in 11/2024 with diagnoses including PTSD. On 1/18/25 a Facility Reported Incident (FRI) was received by the State Survey Agency, which alleged Resident 20 hit Resident 39 on the head several times. Resident 39's 1/18/25 Progress Note indicated she/he reported to the nurse she/he was hit by Resident 20 on the top of the head several times. The facility's investigation dated 1/20/25, revealed Resident 39 and Resident 20 were in the dining room. Resident 39 was on her/his phone when Resident 20 asked Resident 39 to turn her/his phone down. Resident 39 stated she/he did turn her/his phone down, Resident 20 stated Resident 39 refused to turn her/his…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-03-03 · 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 bowel care and failed to follow physician orders for medication parameters for 3 of 5 sampled residents (#s 9, 22, and 24) reviewed for medications. This placed residents at risk for constipation and adverse medication regimen. Findings include: 1. Resident 9 was admitted to the facility in 6/2022, with a diagnosis of dementia. A bowel record dated 1/29/25 through 2/27/25 revealed Resident 9 had a bowel movement on 2/1/25 and did not have another bowel movement until 2/7/25. A 2/2025 MAR revealed Senna (laxative) was administered on 2/4/25 and the results of the administration were unknown. Progress Notes from 1/29/25 through 2/7/25 did not include an assessment related to Resident 9's lack of bowel movement. On 2/27/25 at 9:18 AM, Staff 10 (CMA) stated every day a bowel sheet was printed for all residents. If a resident did not have a bowel movement for three days, bowel care was initiated. On 2/27/25 at 9:18 AM, Staff 8 (LPN) stated if a resident refused bowel care the nurse was to document 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 · Dcited before2025-03-03 · 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 ensure cigarette lighters were not stored in resident rooms for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#5) reviewed for smoking. This placed residents at risk for burns. Findings include: Resident 5 was admitted to the facility in 10/2022 with a diagnoses of seizures and heart disease. The facility's undated Smoking Policy for Residents revealed smoking was only permitted in designated smoking areas and all cigarettes and lighters were to be kept locked at the nurse's station. A 12/30/24 Smoking Assessment indicated Resident 5 was a supervised smoker due to noncompliance with the smoking policy including sharing cigarettes with nonsmoking residents. On 2/26/25 at 2:06 PM, Resident 5 was observed by the back door, in a nonsmoking area, in her/his wheelchair, and was smoking a cigarette. Staff were not with the resident. On 2/26/25 at 2:11 PM, with Witness 4 (State Fire Marshall) Resident 5 stated she/he kept her/his cigarette lighter in a box in her/his coat pocket. Resident 5 pulled the box from her/his…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-03-03 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure respiratory equipment was maintained for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#13) reviewed for respiratory care. This placed residents at risk for increased risk for respiratory concerns. Findings include: Resident 13 admitted to the facility in 11/2023, with diagnoses including congestive heart failure (a progressive heart disease that affects pumping action of the heart muscles). A 12/2024 Annual MDS assessment revealed Resident 13 had a BIMS of 15 (cognitively intact). Review of Resident 13's 8/2024 and 2/2025 TARS revealed an order for PRN oxygen, but no instruction for the resident's oxygen concentrator to be cleaned. On 2/24/25 at 10:05 AM, Resident 13 stated the facility had not cleaned her/his oxygen concentrator and it was filthy the last time they cleaned it. The facility's Departmental Respiratory Therapy policy revealed oxygen cannula and tubing were to be changed every seven days and filters were to be washed every seven days. On 3/3/25 at 12:22 PM, Staff 3 (LPN/Resident Care Manager)…
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 · D2025-03-03 · 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 interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide care and services related to dialysis for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#22) reviewed for dialysis. This placed residents at risk for dialysis access complications. Findings include: Resident 22 was admitted to the facility in 12/2023, with a diagnosis of kidney failure. The facilities Dialysis Access and Care Policy revised on 2/2023 revealed: -Do no use the access site arm to take blood samples, or give injections. -Do not use the access arm to take blood pressure. -Document in the resident's medical record every shift the location, condition of dressing, if dialysis was done, report from dialysis, and observations post-dialysis. A 12/18/24 Annual MDS revealed Resident 22 received dialysis and was cognitively intact. A care plan initiated 12/12/23 revealed Resident 22 had scheduled dialysis on Monday, Wednesday, and Fridays. Staff were to monitor her/his dialysis site upon return from dialysis. Staff were to send the dialysis communication book with the resident to dialysis. Resident 22's care plan…
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 · D2025-03-03 · tag F0699 — isolatedProvide care or services that was trauma informed and/or culturally competent.
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 who was a trauma survivor received trauma-informed care for 1 of 3 sampled resident (#12) reviewed for abuse. This placed residents at risk for unmet trauma needs and a decrease in their quality of life. Findings include: Resident 12 was admitted to the facility in 7/2022, with diagnoses including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). A 1/22/25 MDS indicated Resident 12 was cognitively intact. On 2/24/25 at 12:03 PM, Resident 12 stated about a month ago she/he was coming out of the shower room and another male resident was in the hall. Resident 12 stated the other resident looked her/him up and down and stated he wanted to shower with Resident 12. Resident 12 stated this made her/him uncomfortable and triggered her/his PTSD. A 2/24/25 review of Resident 12's care plan revealed no evidence of a PTSD care plan. On 2/27/25 at 10:17 AM, Staff 2 (DNS) stated Resident 12 had a PTSD care plan initiated on 2/26/25. A 2/28/25 investigation for a 1/14/25 resident-to-resident incident involving…
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 · D2025-03-03 · tag F0730 — isolatedObserve each nurse aide's job performance and give regular training.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure each CNA received annual performance reviews for 2 of 5 sampled CNAs (#s Staff 21 and Staff 23) reviewed for in-service education. This placed residents at risk for lack of care by competent staff. Findings include: On 3/3/25 at 12:31 PM and 1:17 PM, annual performance reviews of Staff 21 (CNA) and Staff 23 (CNA) were requested from Staff 1 (Administrator). Staff 1 was unable to provide the performance reviews and confirmed Staff 21 and Staff 23 did not have their annual performance reviews completed within the last 12 months.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-03-03 · tag F0745 — failed to provide medically-related social services — isolatedProvide medically-related social services to help each resident achieve the highest possible quality of life.
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 medically-related social services for arranging mental health services for 2 of 2 sampled residents (#s 20 and 39) reviewed for abuse and unnecessary medications. This placed residents at risk for unmet behavioral health needs and a decrease in their quality of life. Findings include: 1. Resident 20 was admitted to the facility in 11/2024, with diagnoses including schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and borderline personality disorder. Resident 20's 1/18/25 Progress Note indicated he hit another resident several times on top of the head. The facility's investigation dated 1/20/25 noted Resident 20 was to follow up with mental health due to hitting another resident. A review of Resident 20's medical record on 2/28/25 revealed no evidence Resident 20 was seen by mental health provider after 1/20/25. On 2/28/25 at 2:22 PM, Staff 1 (Administrator) stated the facility did not have a mental health provider who visited the facility. Staff 1 stated the facility 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 · D2025-03-03 · 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 act upon pharmacist recommendations for 1 of 5 sampled residents (# 32) reviewed for unnecessary medications. This placed residents at risk for a decrease in their quality of life. Findings include: Resident 32 was admitted to the facility in 5/2023, with diagnoses including depression, schizoaffective disorder, and anxiety. A review of Resident 32's Physician Orders revealed a 7/29/24 order for aripiprazole (an antipsychotic medication) for schizoaffective disorder, a 7/30/24 order for duloxetine (an antidepressant medication) for depression, and a 7/29/24 order for depakote (a mood stabilizing medication) for schizoaffective disorder. Resident 32's 1/10/25 Pharmacist's Recommendation to Prescriber noted a gradual dose reduction (GDR) for the resident's psychotropic medications (ariprazole, duloxetine, or depakote). The resident's recommendation was signed by her/his provider on 1/28/25, with an order for a psychiatric consult to discuss if a GDR was appropriate. A review of Resident 32's medical 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.
- Potential for harm · D2025-03-03 · 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 provide a rationale for PRN psychotropic medication and develop a care plan related to antianxiety medication side effects for 1 of 5 sampled residents (#9) reviewed for unnecessary medications. This placed residents at risk for sedation. Findings including: Resident 9 was admitted to the facility in 6/2022, with a diagnosis of depression. Resident 9's hospice Certification and Plan of Care revealed Resident 9 was admitted to hospice services on 1/17/25, with orders for lorazepam (an antianxiety medication) was to be administered PRN for restlessness. A care plan revised 1/28/25 revealed Resident 9 had ineffective coping and anxious behavior. Interventions included to give reassurance, report delusions to the nurse, and to See Psychotropic medication plan of care. Resident 9's care plan did not address the resident's psychotropic medication use, side effects of the lorazepam, or nonpharmacological interventions to be used prior to administration of the lorazepam. Resident 9's 2/2024 MAR revealed lorazepam…
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 · D2025-03-03 · 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 ensure a therapy evaluation was obtained for 1 of 2 sampled residents (#38) reviewed for discharge. This placed residents at risk for weakness. Findings include: Resident 38 was admitted to the facility in 8/2024 with a diagnosis of a stroke. Resident 38's 8/29/24 hospital admission orders revealed admit to skilled. There were no orders for PT, OT, or SLP. A 9/3/24 Physician Encounter Note revealed Resident 38 was to continue skilled PT, SLP, and OT at the facility until the resident had enough strength and function to return to her/his previous living situation safety and successfully. Review of Resident 38's record revealed there were no therapy services provided. On 2/27/25 at 11:50 AM and 2/28/25 at 8:46 AM, Staff 3 (LPN/Resident Care Manager) stated Resident 38 required little assistance from the facility and could be at a lower level of care. Staff 3 stated Resident 38 was never a skilled resident. Staff 3 reviewed the 9/3/24 Physician Encounter Note and stated therapy got missed. Staff 2 stated she…
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 · D2025-03-03 · tag F0847 — isolatedInform resident or representatives choice to enter into binding arbitration agreement and right to refuse.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure residents were fully informed and understood the binding arbitration agreement for 1 of 3 sampled resident (# 12) reviewed for binding arbitration agreement. This placed residents at risk of being uninformed regarding their legal rights. Findings include: Resident 12 admitted to the facility in 11/2022, with diagnoses including quadriplegia (paralysis affecting all of a person's limbs). On 9/20/23 Resident 12 signed an Arbitration Agreement with the new owner of the facility. On 2/27/25 at 2:20 PM, Resident 12 stated she/he did not know what a binding arbitration agreement was. Resident 12 stated she/he never would have signed a document giving up the right to sue the facility in court if she/he had known that was what she/he was signing. In interviews on 2/28/25 at 11:55 AM and 12:26 PM, Staff 7 (Social Services Director) stated she left the form with Resident 12 at her/his request then returned after a few days and asked for the form. Staff 7 stated she would discuss the form with residents when requested, and 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 · D2025-03-03 · tag F0887 — isolatedEducate residents and staff on COVID-19 vaccination, offer the COVID-19 vaccine to eligible residents and staff after education, and properly document each resident and staff member's vaccination status.
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 offer Covid-19 vaccines for 3 of 5 sampled residents (#s 19, 38 and 39) reviewed for vaccines. This placed residents at risk for respiratory illness. findings include: 1. Resident 19 was admitted to the facility in 9/2022, with a diagnosis of Parkinson's disease. Resident 19's clinical record revealed she/he was eligible but not offered the Covid vaccine. On 2/27/25 at 11:02 AM and at 11:26 AM, Staff 2 (DNS) verified Resident 19 was eligible to receive a Covid-19 vaccine. A request was made for Staff 2 to provide documentation a Covid-19 vaccine was offered to Resident 19. No additional information was provided. 2. Resident 38 was admitted to the facility in 8/2024, with a diagnosis of a stroke. Resident 38's clinical record revealed she/he was eligible for, but was not offered a Covid-19 vaccine. On 2/27/25 at 11:02 AM and at 11:26 AM, Staff 2 (DNS) verified Resident 38 was eligible to receive a Covid-19 vaccine. A request was made to Staff 2 to provide documentation a Covid-19 vaccine was offered 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 · Dcited before2023-10-06 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were treated with dignity and respect for 1 of 2 sampled residents (#13) reviewed for dignity. This placed residents at risk for lack of privacy and dignity. Findings include: Resident 13 was admitted to the facility in 2020 with diagnoses including chronic heart failure and diabetes. The facility's 2/2021 Dignity Policy indicated staff were to protect resident's privacy, including bodily privacy during assistance with personal care. Resident 13's 4/6/23 ADL Functional Status CAA indicated the resident was non-ambulatory and occasionally needed staff assistance with toilet hygiene following a bowel movement. On 10/3/23 at 12:43 PM Resident 13 was observed from the hallway sitting on a toilet in the bathroom located across the hall from her/his room. The door to the bathroom was open and the resident's electric wheelchair was in the doorway. The hallway had a strong fecal odor. Staff members were observed walking past the bathroom and did not offer privacy to the resident. On…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-10-06 · 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 observation and interview it was determined the facility failed to ensure resident bathrooms were clean and kept in good repair for 1 of 2 sampled resident rooms (#26) reviewed for environment. This placed residents at risk for living in an unhomelike environment. Findings include: Multiple observations between 10/2/23 and 10/4/23 revealed the bathroom in the following condition: The bathroom was observed to have one of two light bulbs not working, the bathroom fan had a thick layer of fuzz/lint build up (approximately half an inch) and the toilet ran continuously. The base around the toilet was black in color and the floor around the toilet had a rust/brown color that extended approximately 5 inches in width on both sides. The floor on the back side of the toilet had a crack approximately 10 inches in length that extended to the wall. An uneven bulge on the floor located on the right side of the toilet was present. On 10/02/23 at 2:19 PM the resident in room [ROOM NUMBER] stated the bathroom needed…
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 · D2023-10-06 · tag F0640 — isolatedEncode each resident’s assessment data and transmit these data to the State within 7 days of assessment.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, 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 transmit Discharge MDS Assessments and Quarterly MDS Assessments in a timely manner for 2 of 14 sampled residents (#s 32 and 139) reviewed for MDS completion. This placed residents at risk for untimely, inaccurate records and unmet needs. Findings include: 1. Resident 32 admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged on 7/13/23. A review of Resident 32's health record revealed no evidence a 7/13/23 Discharge MDS was transmitted. On 10/6/23 at 11:10 AM Staff 2 (DNS) acknowledged Resident 32's Discharge MDS was not transmitted timely. 2. Resident 139 admitted to the facility on [DATE] and she/he passed away in the facility on 11/22/22. A review of Resident 139's health record revealed her/his Discharge MDS was not transmitted. On 10/6/23 at 11:10 AM Staff 2 (DNS) acknowledged Resident 139's 11/22/22 Discharge MDS was not transmitted timely.
- Potential for harm · D2023-10-06 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
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 a restorative program to prevent further decline in range of motion for 3 of 3 sampled residents (#s 5, 14 and 17) who were reviewed for mobility. This placed residents at risk for a decline in their range of motion abilities. Findings include: 1. Resident 5 admitted to the facility in 5/2016 with diagnoses including traumatic brain injury, stroke and abnormal gait. A 3/25/22 Restorative Therapy Plan indicated Resident 5 was to receive restorative therapy three to five times a week and staff were to assist Resident 5 with ambulation 50 to 70 feet with SBA (stand by assist), shoes, gait belt, and FWW (front wheeled walker) once daily. Restorative Therapy records from 9/1/23 through 10/5/23 (35 opportunities) indicated Resident 5 only received five days of her/his restorative therapy sessions. On 10/2/23 at 12:22 PM Resident 5 stated staff were to assist her/him with ambulation with a walker for exercise. Resident 5…
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 before2023-10-06 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate of less than five percent. There were three errors in 27 opportunities resulting in an 11.11% error rate. This placed residents at risk for adverse medication consequences. Findings include: 1. Resident 2 was admitted to the facility in 2021 with diagnoses including bone density disorder. Resident 2's 9/11/23 physician's orders included alendronate sodium (medication to treat brittle bones) weekly with directions to give the medication on an empty stomach with six to eight ounces of water. On 10/4/23 at 4:07 AM Staff 11 (LPN) was observed to administer the alendronate sodium medication to Resident 2. Resident 2 took the medication with two sips of water from her/his personal cup. Staff 11 did not provide the resident with six to eight ounces of water or encourage Resident 2 to consume additional water with the medication. On 10/5/23 at 1:01 PM Staff 11 stated she did not know Resident 2 was to receive six to eight ounces of water with the alendronate medication…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“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.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to SAPPHIRE HEALTH SERVICES — 8 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 | 2 of 5 | 1.9 | +0.1 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 1.9 | +0.1 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 3.1 | +0.9 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 3.0 | +1.0 vs chain |
The other 7 homes this chain runs (chain average 1.9★, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BECKER, ANDREW | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 30% | since 11/28/2022 |
| HILTY, LISA | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 25% | since 11/28/2022 |
| MORRIS, BRYAN | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 5% | since 11/28/2022 |
| RICKER, KEVIN | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 40% | since 11/28/2022 |
| SAPPHIRE HEALTHCARE SRVS. | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/30/2025 |
| LIVINGSTON, RACHEL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/26/2024 |
| RUDEN, NATHAN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 10 rows in the source record cover these 7 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.
About 97% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $222K 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 385275. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-06-05, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.