No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Oregon Veterans Home

700 Veterans Drive, The Dalles, OR 97058 · Non profit - Corporation · 151 certified beds · (541) 296-7190 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Flagged for abuseBehavioral-health or dementia-care citation — no harm found (F0758)1 actual-harm citation CMS recorded as corrected before the inspection ended (past non-compliance)$13,065 in federal fines
Insights

This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.

In its favor
  • a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
Worth asking about
  • CMS has flagged it for abuse
  • it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Jun 2026
  • it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
  • inspectors recorded 1 serious finding as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
  • the CMS record shows $13,065 in federal fines (most recent 2026-06-26)
  • 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)

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.

3/5
CMS overall
3 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 2 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 5 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 4 of 5

Worth a closer look. This home's staffing and quality-measure ratings run 3 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

Hospital
★★★★ 4/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
704 Veterans Drive
Pharmacy
Walgreens3.2 mi
515 Mount Hood St · (541) 296-3190 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
115 E 13th St · (541) 705-0772 · Call to confirm hours
Park
3350 E Columbia View Dr · (541) 296-6703 · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship
501 Veterans Dr · (541) 298-1956

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 3 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 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 held steady at 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.

Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.

Overall rating5★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased17.7%14.9%15.4%worse
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight6.9%4.7%5.4%worse
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.2%1.4%0.9%better
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection0.8%2.0%2.0%better
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms7.2%4.9%6.5%worse
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.1%0.1%better
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury3.3%2.4%3.3%typical
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened22.2%20.6%16.1%worse
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication17.3%12.4%18.9%typical
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%95.2%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers9.7%5.8%4.7%worse
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control20.5%21.8%21.2%typical
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table21.5%13.9%17.1%worse
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication1.4%1.4%1.4%typical
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine48.1%81.2%79.4%worse
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission0.0%21.4%22.6%check this — see note marked star below the table
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit17.8%16.1%12.0%worse
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days0.741.481.67better
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days1.282.351.80better

* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.

§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.

CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.

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.

38.6% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 36 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

38.6%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
10.2%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
66.7%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.12U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.05hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.04hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.03hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 66.7% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 24 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.

Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.12 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 8% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 8% 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
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF38.6%CMS range 24.6–53.351.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF10.2%CMS range 6.3–16.510.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge66.7%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge54.2%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge54.2%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified100.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care settingnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final dischargenot 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 stay6.9%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened0.0%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalizationnot 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 SNFs0.881.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS makes no comparison for this measure

From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.

Staffing

0.99
RN hours/ resident / day
0.28
LPN hours/ resident / day
3.76
Aide hours/ resident / day
5.03
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.52
RN hoursweekends
41.2%
Total nursing turnover
25.0%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 151 beds and averages 110.8 residents a day — about 73% occupied, or roughly 40 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 5.03 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.99 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.76 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.

Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 4.31 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.33 on weekdays — 19% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.18 to 0.52 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 41% is about the same as 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

5
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2025-03-14)
3
at the previous standard inspection (2023-11-03)

Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. 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.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.

13 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.

  • Actual harm · Gcited before2026-06-26 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolated
    Protect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to protect the resident's right to be free from physical abuse for 1 of 10 sampled residents (#26) reviewed for abuse. This placed residents at risk for physical harm. Findings include:The facilities Resident Freedom from Abuse Policy revised 10/7/24 stated the following:-The facility would prevent and prohibit abuse and ensure residents were provided with a safe environment.-Resident-to-Resident abuse included the willful or non-willful infliction of injury resulting in physical harm.Resident 26 was admitted to the facility in 6/2023 with diagnoses including depression.Resident 26's 11/30/25 Annual MDS revealed she/he had a BIMS of 14, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. Resident 7 was admitted to the facility in 5/2025 with diagnoses including post-traumatic stress disorder and depression.Resident 7's 4/24/26 Annual MDS revealed she/he had a BIMS of 14, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. A…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
  • Potential for harm · E2025-03-14 · tag F0641 — pattern
    Ensure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
    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 accurately code MDS assessments for 5 of 5 sampled residents (#s 10, 23, 84, 97, and 103) reviewed for use of anticoagulants. This placed residents at risk for inaccurate medication assessments. Findings include: 1. Resident 10 admitted to the facility in 2018 with diagnoses including dementia and anxiety. The 10/29/24 and 1/21/25 Quarterly MDSes indicated Resident 10 received an anticoagulant medication. No evidence was found in Resident 10's clinical record to indicate she/he received an anticoagulant medication. On 3/14/25 at 9:40 AM, Staff 6 RNCM and at 11:15 AM, Staff 2 (DNS) were interviewed. Staff 6 stated she completed portions of the the MDS, including section N for medications. Staff 6 acknowledged Resident 10 was not on an anticoagulant and the 10/29/24 and 1/21/25 Quarterly MDS entries were inaccurate. Staff 2 (DNS) acknowledged Resident 10 was not on an anticoagulant medication. 2. Resident 23 admitted to the facility in 2024 with diagnoses including dementia and heart failure. The 11/30/24…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-03-14 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolated
    Protect 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 Resident 76 for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#106) reviewed for physical abuse. This placed residents at risk for physical, mental, or psychosocial harm. Findings include: Resident 106 admitted to the facility in 2/2024 with diagnoses including heart failure and dementia. Resident 106 passed away on 11/2/24. Resident 76 admitted to the facility in 1/2023 with diagnoses including dementia and anxiety disorder. Resident 76's, Behavior Care Plan dated 4/24/23 indicated the resident expressed agitation with others, typically related to noise. Staff were to encourage Resident 76 to go to her/his room or another quiet area if there was music playing and she/he was getting agitated. A 9/17/24 Resident to Resident Conflict report indicated that day an altercation occurred in the residents' shared room. The report stated Resident 106 was choked by Resident 76. Staff reported hearing yelling coming from the room and when they arrived, they observed 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.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
  • Potential for harm · D2025-03-14 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolated
    Timely 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 report an allegation of sexual abuse to the State Survey Agency for 2 of 3 residents (#s 54 and 307) reviewed for sexual abuse. This placed residents at risk for a lack of protective measures to prevent further abuse. Findings include: 1. Resident 54 admitted to the facility in 4/2021 with diagnoses including diabetes and a leg fracture. Resident 108 admitted to the facility in 11/2022 with diagnoses including diabetes and PTSD. Resident 54's 9/16/24 St. Louis University Mental Status (SLUMS) Examination indicated the resident had a score of 16/30, indicating cognitive impairment or possible dementia. On 1/8/25 a public complaint was received indicating Resident 108 was known to inappropriately touch female residents during activities. Witness 2 (Complainant) stated Resident 108 put her/his hand up their shirts or down their pants. Witness 2 stated Resident 108 put her/his hand up Resident 54's shirt five or six months ago. There was no further information provided. On 3/11/25 at 1:19 PM and 3/13/25 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.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-03-14 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolated
    Respond appropriately to all alleged violations.
    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 thoroughly investigate an allegation of abuse for 3 of 6 sampled residents (#s 54, 106, and 307) reviewed for abuse. This placed residents at risk for lack of protective measures to prevent a reoccurrence. Findings include: The facility's 10/7/24 Freedom from Abuse and Abuse Investigation Policy stated, The facility will investigate all charges of abuse and report findings to the appropriate local and state agencies. 1. Resident 54 admitted to the facility in 4/2021 with diagnoses including diabetes and a leg fracture. Resident 108 admitted to the facility in 11/2022 with diagnoses including diabetes and PTSD. Resident 54's 9/16/24 St. Louis University Mental Status (SLUMS) Examination indicated the resident had a score of 16/30, indicating cognitive impairment or possible dementia. On 1/8/25 a public complaint was received indicating Resident 108 was known to inappropriately touch female residents during activities. Witness 2 (Complainant) stated Resident 108 would put her/his hand up their shirts or…

    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.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-03-14 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
    Provide 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 related to bowel care were followed for 1 of 5 sampled residents (#79) reviewed for unnecessary medications. This placed residents at risk for adverse side effects of medications. Findings include: Resident 79 was admitted to the facility in 5/2023 with diagnosis including dementia and diabetes. A 7/16/24 physician order indicated Resident 79 was to receive a bowel care medication, Lactulose, once a day for constipation and the medication was to be held if the resident had two loose stools the day prior. A review of the 1/2025, 2/2025, and 3/2025 bowel records revealed the resident had two or more loose stools on the following dates: 1/3/25, 1/4/25, 1/10/25, 2/25/25, and 3/4/25. A review of the 1/2025, 2/2025, and 3/2025 MARs revealed Resident 79 was administered Lactulose on days it was to be held per the physician order on the following dates: 1/4/25, 1/5/25, 1/11/25, 2/26/25, and 3/5/25. On 3/13/25 at 2:39 PM Staff 4 (CMA) stated Resident 79 was consistent with having loose…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-11-03 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolated
    Provide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were assessed after significant weight loss was identified for 2 of 3 sampled residents (#s 62 and 74) reviewed for weight loss. This placed residents at risk for severe weight loss. Findings include: 1. Resident 62 was admitted to the facility in 2/2023 with diagnoses including end stage renal disease. The 2/20/23 admission MDS indicated Resident 62 had no weight loss and was on a therapeutic diet. The resident's Care Plan for risk for altered nutritional status, revised on 2/24/23, indicated a goal of maintaining weight and did not indicate the resident had any weight loss. Resident's 62's weight records indicated the following (weight in pounds): - 2/20/23: 142 - 9/12/23: 136 - 9/28/23: 125 - 10/5/23: 127 - 10/23/23: 125 The weight loss of 11 pounds from 9/12/23 to 9/28/23 indicated a significant weight loss of 8% in 16 days. A review of the resident's clinical record revealed no evidence Resident 62's weight loss was assessed and no indication new interventions were put in place 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-11-03 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolated
    Provide 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 obtain a physician's order for supplemental oxygen, ensure oxygen tubing was changed and oxygen equipment was maintained for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#25) reviewed for respiratory care. This placed residents at risk for respiratory complications. Findings include: Resident 25 was admitted to the facility in 2022 with diagnoses including obstructive sleep apnea (Pauses in breathing during sleep due to airway blockage). The facility's 2012 Oxygen Administration Procedure related to Physician's Orders and equipment maintenance included the following: - Check the Physician's Order for oxygen liter flow and method of administration. - Check and clean oxygen equipment and change oxygen tubing at regular intervals. On 10/31/23 at 8:41 AM Resident 25 was observed to have an oxygen concentrator (machine that filters air into purified oxygen) in her/his room. The oxygen concentrator had dust accumulation on the top of the concentrator and concentrator filter. The humidification bottle and oxygen tubing…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-11-03 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolated
    Provide 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 care and services were in place to treat an emergency related to a resident's dialysis port for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#62) reviewed for dialysis. This placed residents at risk for blood loss. Findings include: Resident 62 was admitted to the facility in 2/2023 with diagnoses including end stage renal disease. Resident 62's Care Plan, revised on 3/6/23, indicated the resident received hemodialysis (a process of artificially removing toxins from the blood using an external filtering system) via a port in the resident's chest. The care plan did not include any interventions related to emergent blood loss from the port. On 10/30/23 at 2:23 PM no emergency supplies were observed in Resident 62's room. On 10/31/23 at 1:07 PM Staff 6 (RN) stated she was not sure what she would do if Resident 62 was bleeding from the port. On 10/31/23 at 1:38 PM Staff 3 (RNCM) stated if Resident 62 was bleeding from the port she would try to stop it and call 911. When asked if the facility had supplies 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2022-10-07 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — pattern
    Provide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide ROM and RA services for 4 of 4 sampled residents (#s 7, 72, 83 and 85) reviewed for positioning and mobility. This placed residents at risk for a decline in mobility. Findings include: 1. Resident 7 was admitted to the facility in 2018 with diagnoses including dementia and Huntington's disease (an inherited condition in which nerve cells in the brain break down over time). A Facility Restorative Care Referral form (generated by the therapy department PT) dated 1/17/22 indicated the resident was to have an RA walking program to maintain mobility. The resident was a contact guard assist (CGA) with walking and needed cues for balance, steering her/his front wheel walker (FWW) and safety. Special instructions included walking to the bathroom, dining room or activities. Resident 7's care plan dated 1/25/22 indicated the resident had limited physical mobility related to Huntington's Disease, chorea movements (involuntary, irregular, unpredictable muscle movements) and dementia. The goal was for 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2022-10-07 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — pattern
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to handle and utilize PPE and clean reusable equipment between uses according to CDC guidelines for 1 of 1 facility, ensure AGP procedures were adhered to for 1 of 4 sampled residents (#68) reviewed for infection control, and ensure catheters were properly contained for 2 of 3 sampled residents (#s 55 and 81) reviewed for urinary catheters. This placed residents at risk for infection. Findings include: 1. A review of the undated Policy and Procedure for AGP (Aerosol-generating procedures) revealed the following: -AGP included CPAP (continuous positive airway pressure). -When conducting AGP for patients suspected or known exposure to COVID-19, health care personnel should utilize PPE for special contact droplet precautions. -Staff are to wear N95, eye protection, gown and gloves. -When conducting AGP staff to provide a private room for residents who utilized AGP and close off room where procedure took place for two hours after…

    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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2022-10-07 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolated
    Provide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure dependent residents were provided services to maintain hygiene for 2 of 4 sampled residents (#s 55 and 84) reviewed for ADLs. This placed residents at risk for unmet needs. Findings include: Resident 55 was admitted to the facility in 2018 with diagnoses including depression and COPD (long-term lung disease that makes it difficult to breath). A 1/13/22 physician order indicated staff to check and trim Resident 55's fingernails every four weeks. The 8/12/22 Quarterly MDS indicated Resident 55 required extensive one person assist with personal hygiene. Resident 55's 6/29/18 care plan indicated the resident was at risk for impaired ADL function related to impaired mobility and weakness and required extensive assistance with all hygiene. On 10/5/22 at 8:18 AM and 10/7/22 at 12:17 PM Resident 55 was observed sitting in her/his wheelchair. The resident's fingernails were long, uncut and appeared dark brown in color. Resident 55 stated she/he was not able to trim her/his fingernails for a few…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2022-10-07 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolated
    Implement 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 observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure gradual dose reductions (GDRs) were attempted for residents on psychotropic medications for 1 of 5 sampled residents (# 87) reviewed for unnecessary psychotropic medications. This placed residents at risk for receiving unnecessary medications. Findings include: Resident 87 was admitted to the facility in 2018 with diagnoses including Alzheimer's dementia and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). A review of Resident 87's MAR/TAR for 9/2022 and 10/2022 revealed the resident was on a number of psychotropic and opioid medications: olanzapine, donepezil, sertraline, trazadone, Fentanyl, topiramate sprinkle and oxycodone scheduled and PRN . Four of the medications were Central Nervous System Drugs: olanzapine, sertraline, trazodone and topiramate. Two were antidepressants: sertraline and trazodone. Eight of the resident's medications had major drug interaction warnings. The 10/2022 MAR also contained the following order: naloxone 4 mg actuation spray. One spray in alternating nostrils as…

    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.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“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.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • 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.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

$13,065 in federal fines across 1 penalty.

  • $13,065 — penalty dated 2026-06-26

Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleShareSince
STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRSOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST100%since 10/01/2003
PRAY, TARAIndividualW-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEEsince 06/14/2022
HAOLE VALENZUELA, DONNAIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 03/01/2022
VETERANS CARE CENTERS OF OREGONOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 10/01/2003
WESTCARE MANAGEMENT INCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 10/01/2003
DECKER, BRYANIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 10/01/2003

3 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.

Follow the money — this home’s finances

Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.

$17.8M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-3.2%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 27%Medicare 3%Other / private 70%

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

$514per resident / day
operating cost
$15,627per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$498per day
avg. revenue, all payers

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

Paying with Medicaid

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.

Typical monthly cost in Oregon
$16,760/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$18,448/mo
Nursing home (private)
$6,875/mo
Assisted living

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 385257. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-03-14, 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.

What to do next