Marquis Tualatin Post Acute Rehab
19945 SW Boones Ferry Road, Tualatin, OR 97062 · For profit - Corporation · 54 certified beds · (503) 612-5400 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0602), cited Feb 2025
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 18.6% | 14.9% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 9.3% | 4.7% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 2.4% | 1.4% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 2.0% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 4.9% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 2.2% | 2.4% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 9.3% | 12.4% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 90.0% | 95.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 5.0% | 5.8% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 21.2% | 21.8% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 13.3% | 13.9% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.2% | 1.4% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 77.6% | 81.2% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 25.2% | 21.4% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 11.1% | 16.1% | 12.0% | typical |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
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.
70.8% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 330 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 49.7% 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 171 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 0.69 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 91% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 24% 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 | 70.8%CMS range 66.8–76.2 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 8.7%CMS range 6.2–12.1 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no 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 discharge | 49.7% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 40.9% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 49.7% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 92.7% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.5% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 3.2% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 5.0%CMS range 3.0–8.1 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.80 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 54 beds and averages 42.8 residents a day — about 79% occupied, or roughly 11 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 5.47 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.86 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.01 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 4.79 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.75 on weekdays — 17% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.06 to 0.36 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 46% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are 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.
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.
11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · E2026-05-22 · 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 — the official record, unedited, 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 sanitary food storage and handling. This placed residents at risk for food-borne illness and contamination. Findings include:On 5/18/26 at 10:46 AM during the initial tour of the facility's dining room and kitchenette the following was observed in the communal freezer:-An opened ice cream bar, uncovered, not labeled or dated.-A small ice cream container covered with a plastic lid, not labeled or dated.-Dried brown substance smudged on the sides of the freezer wall.-Spilled substance stuck on the bottom of the freezer shelf.On 5/18/26 Staff 1 (Administrator) and Staff 17 (Dietary Manager) observed the items with the surveyor and indicated the items in the freezer needed to be thrown away and the spilled substances needed to be cleaned.
- Potential for harm · D2026-05-22 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
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 personal hygiene for 1 of 2 sampled residents (#26) reviewed for ADLs. This placed residents at risk for poor hygiene. Findings include: Resident 26 was admitted to the facility in 10/2022 with diagnoses including Parkinson's.The 2022 [NAME] Standards of Care indicated the following: -Staff were required to shave residents as needed. A 10/2022 Care Plan indicated Resident 26 required supervision with cueing and assistance during shaving. A 4/27/26 Quarterly MDS indicated Resident 26 had a BIMS score of 15 indicating she/he was cognitively intact. The 5/18/26 and 5/21/26 Medical Record indicated Staff 8 (CNA) and Staff 9 (CNA) provided assistance to complete personal hygiene.During random observations from 5/18/26 through 5/21/26 from 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM, Resident 9's beard was unkempt. Resident 9's beard was overgrown with gray and brown hairs. On 5/20/26 at 9:18 AM, Resident 26 stated staff did not offer to assist…
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 · D2026-05-22 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to follow physician orders for 2 of 6 sampled residents (#s 18 and 31) reviewed for dialysis and medications. This placed residents at risk for worsening medical conditions. Findings include:1. Resident 18 was admitted to the facility in 5/2026 with diagnoses including kidney failure and diabetes. A review of Resident 18's current physician orders indicated the following medication and treatment: -Aspirin daily for heart health. -Vitamin B12 for a daily supplement. -CBGs were to be taken in the morning and at bedtime. Resident 18's 5/2026 MAR revealed the resident did not receive Aspirin, Vitamin B12 or have her/his CBGs checked on the mornings of 5/9, 5/12, 5/14, 5/16, 5/19 and 5/20. On 5/21/26 at 10:23 AM Staff 6 (RN) stated Resident 18 had dialysis early in the morning on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. Staff 6 stated on the days the resident had dialysis she/he did not receive her/his morning medications and CBG checks due to being…
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 · D2026-05-22 · 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
Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure staff assisted residents with use of a prescribed boot to prevent a potential decrease in ROM or mobility for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#5) reviewed for ADLs. This placed residents at risk for loss of ROM and mobility. Findings include:Resident 5 was admitted to the facility in 2/2026 with diagnoses including a stroke.Resident 5's 2/15/26 admission MDS indicated the resident had severe cognitive impairment and a range of motion impairment on her/his lower extremity.Resident 5's revised 4/27/26 Care Plan revealed the resident required a contracture boot to be placed on her/his right foot for two hours on and two hours off.Random observations between 5/18/26 from 10:00 AM and 5/21/26 at 9:05 AM revealed Resident 5's contracture boot sat on the chair next to the resident's bed and revealed no instances of Resident 5 with the contracture boot on her/his foot.On 5/19/26 at 12:28 AM Witness 3 (Family Member) stated Resident 5 was supposed to have a support boot placed onto her/his right foot.…
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 · D2026-05-22 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to properly disinfect a shared glucometer between resident uses for 1 of 5 sampled residents (#1) reviewed for infection control during CBG checks. This placed residents at risk for exposure to infection. Findings include: The undated facility Glucometer Disinfection Policy indicated to disinfect after each individual patient use with EPA disinfectant wipes.A 2017 Evencare G2 Glucometer Manufacturer Manual indicated, Disinfect common use glucometers with the use of approved disinfectant wipes. The glucometer was to be wiped with the disinfecting wipe and left wet for two minutes to ensure disinfection. On 5/19/26 at 12:12 PM, Staff 6 was observed to obtain a CBG for Resident 31. Staff 6 returned to the medication cart, wiped the glucometer with an alcohol pad wipe, which was not an EPA-approved disinfecting wipe, and placed the glucometer back inside the cart. Staff 6 stated she always cleaned the glucometers with an alcohol pad wipe after use, and she believed other staff cleaned it the same…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-02-28 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure medications and biologicals were secured for 1 of 4 medication and treatment carts reviewed for safe medication storage. This placed residents at risk for unauthorized access to medications. Findings include: The facility's 5/2010 Security of Medication Cart Policy specified the following: -The nurse must secure the medication cart during the medication pass to prevent unauthorized entry. -The medication cart must be securely locked at all times when out of the nurse's view. a. On 2/26/25 at 11:38 AM, the medication cart adjacent to the nursing station entered A-hall was unlocked and unattended. At 11:40 AM Staff 6 (RN) entered the A-hallway with a different medication and treatment cart. As Staff 6 passed by the unlocked and unattended cart she was observed to push in the lock on the cart to secure it and kept walking. Staff 6 went to a resident's room nearby and Staff 5 (RN) was observed to exit that same resident's room. During an interview with Staff 5 and Staff 6 on 2/26/25 at…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-02-28 · tag F0602 — failed to protect residents from theft of their belongings — isolatedProtect each resident from the wrongful use of the resident's belongings or money.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to prevent misappropriation of financial resources by Staff 7 (Former Agency CNA) for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#145) reviewed for misappropriation of property. This placed residents at risk for misuse of personal funds. Findings include: The facility's 5/2010 Misappropriation of Property- Lost Items policy specified misappropriation of resident property as the patterned or deliberate exploitation of a resident's belongings or money without the resident's consent. Resident 145 was admitted to the facility in 10/2024 with diagnoses including right femur fracture (a break in the thigh bone). The 10/16/24 admission MDS indicated Resident 145 was cognitively intact. Resident 145 discharged from the facility on 11/2/24. A 12/4/24 FRI indicated on 12/4/24 Witness 1 (Family) reported to Staff 1 (Administrator) a fraudulent check was written from Resident 145's check book while a resident at the facility. The check was made out to Staff 7 while…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-02-28 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to thoroughly investigate alleged misappropriation of property for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#145) reviewed for abuse. This placed residents at risk for misuse of personal funds. Findings include: The facility's 5/2010 Misappropriation of Property- Lost Items policy specified when an incident of misappropriation of resident property was reported, the administrator would appoint a staff member to investigate the incident. The investigation would consist of the following: -An interview with the resident. -An interview with the employee(s) accused of taking the resident's property. -A review of the resident's personal inventory record to determine if missing items were recorded on the report. -Interviews with staff members (on all shifts as applicable) having contact with the resident. Resident 145 was admitted to the facility in 10/2024 with diagnoses including right femur fracture (a break in the thigh bone). The 10/16/24 admission MDS…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-06-07 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to notify a resident's representative of a fall for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#1) reviewed for falls. This placed resident representatives at risk for being uninformed of resident accidents. Findings include: Resident 1 was admitted to the facility in 11/2023 with diagnoses including BPH (benign prostatic hyperplasia) and depression. Resident 1's admission Record revealed Witness 15 (Family Member) was Resident 1's resident representative and emergency contact. No information was found in the clinical record to indicate Witness 15 signed paperwork as Resident 1's resident representative. On 6/5/24 at 12:48 PM Witness 15 stated Resident 1 fell at the facility on the morning of 12/3/23, and no one from the facility contacted Witness 15 regarding the incident. On 6/6/24 at 11:22 AM Staff 12 (LPN) stated she did not contact the family after Resident 1's fall because the resident was her/his own representative. On 6/6/24 at 12:47 PM Staff 4 (RNCM) stated Witness 15 should have been notified of the fall if Witness 15 was Resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-06-07 · 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 interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents received care plan interventions for safe transfer and failed to ensure residents were monitored after a fall for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#1) reviewed for accidents. This placed residents at risk for latent injury. Findings include: Resident 1 was admitted to the facility in 11/2023 with diagnoses including BPH (benign prostatic hyperplasia) and depression. A review of the resident's care plan, dated 11/28/23, indicated Resident 1 required a two-person mechanical lift with transfers, wore non skid socks when out of bed, and the call light was to be within reach. a. A Fall/Post Fall Assessment and Investigation dated 12/3/24 revealed the following: -At 9:45 AM, Resident 1 was found on the floor next to the left side of her/his bed by Staff 12 (LPN). -The resident was previously sitting in her/his wheelchair and Staff 12 heard Resident 1 calling for help. -Resident 1 stated she/he became dizzy and fell forward out of the wheelchair. -The resident was toileted at 7:00 AM and was last…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-06-07 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide appropriate catheter care for a resident's urinary catheter for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#1) reviewed for catheter care. This placed residents at increased risk for infection. Findings include: Resident 1 was admitted to the facility in 11/2023 with diagnoses including BPH (benign prostatic hyperplasia) and hematuria (blood in the urine). A Nursing admission Assessment, dated 11/28/23 at 9:19 AM, revealed Resident 1 admitted due to urosepsis (a urinary tract infection which spreads to the kidneys) with hematuria. The resident had a urinary catheter with a large amount of hematuria present. The resident was at risk for functional incontinence related to weakness, impaired mobility, and dependence on staff to meet mobility and toileting needs. Resident 1 was care planned for staff assistance with toileting, used a large brief, received daily urinary catheter care, and skilled therapy services to promote toileting safety and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to MARQUIS COMPANIES — 15 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 5 of 5 | 4.3 | +0.7 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 3.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
| Staffing | 5 of 5 | 4.4 | +0.6 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 3.2 | -0.2 vs chain |
The other 14 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.3★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MARQUIS COMPANIES I, INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | 100% | since 05/01/2014 |
| FOGG, PHILLIP | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | 100% | since 05/01/2014 |
| BUCHER, AMY | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 05/01/2014 |
| FOGG, STEVEN | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 05/01/2014 |
| LEVEE, KATHLEEN | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 05/01/2014 |
| SPRANDO, ERIN | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 05/01/2014 |
| TONE, STACI | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 05/01/2014 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 16 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.
This home reported $741K 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 385279. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-05-22, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.