Village Manor Of Cascadia
2060 NE 238th Drive, Wood Village, OR 97060 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 60 certified beds · (503) 491-0553 Medicaid only — no Medicare
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (21% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited May 2025
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0605, F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- a high number of inspection citations overall (24) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its payroll-based staffing score sits well above its independent inspection score
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the staffing score rests on the facility's own payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 5 to 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 9.7% | 14.9% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 9.1% | 4.7% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 1.4% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.3% | 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 | 2.6% | 2.4% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 19.6% | 20.6% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 23.6% | 12.4% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.1% | 95.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 0.0% | 5.8% | 4.7% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 25.1% | 21.8% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 44.0% | 13.9% | 17.1% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.15 | 1.48 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.92 | 2.35 | 1.80 | 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.
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 3% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 60 beds and averages 58.0 residents a day — about 97% occupied, or roughly 2 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. 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 4.52 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.54 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.26 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 4.15 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.67 on weekdays — 11% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.66 to 0.25 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 21% is below 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.
24 citations, most serious first. The 11 most serious are shown; the remaining 13 are one tap away and print in full.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2025-08-12 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to implement care plan interventions to prevent a fall for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#1) reviewed for accidents. As a result, Resident 1 sustained multiple pelvic fractures. Findings include:Resident 1 was admitted to the facility in 2025, with diagnoses including dementia. Resident 1's 7/25/25 Care Plan revealed Resident 1 was a fall risk because of a prior fall and was a one-person max assist for dressing. Resident 1 was care planned for supervision and touch assistance for bathing, used a shower bench or bathtub, and was to wear non-skid footwear when up. A 7/28/25 FRI indicated Staff 5 (Housekeeping) and Staff 6 (Housekeeping) reported Resident 1 had a fall in the shower room. Staff 5 and 6 found staff to assist Resident 1. The report indicated staff found Resident 1 down in the shower, unattended, and not fully clothed. Resident 1 was transferred to the hospital for evaluation. The FRI indicated Resident 1 sustained multiple complex fractures of the pelvis and was bleeding internally. The FRI indicated…
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 · D2025-05-09 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to maintain a homelike environment for 1 of 1 resident (#9) reviewed for homelike environment. This placed residents at risk for lessened quality of life. Findings include: Resident 9 admitted to the facility in 5/2020 with diagnoses including borderline personality disorder. Resident 9's 2/28/25 care plan found no indication for having a short chain on his/her bedside light. On 5/5/25 at 9:58 AM Resident 9 was observed to have a three to four inch chain on the light on the wall over his/her bed. Resident 9 stated she/he was unable to use it due to the short length and was unable to turn on the light independently. Resident 9 stated she/he became frustrated and had to ring his/her bell to have someone come turn on the light. Resident 9 further stated she/he should be able off her/his own light without assistance. On 5/6/25 at 1:54 PM Staff 30 (CNA) stated she thought Resident 9 was able to turn his/her bedside light on and off with the use of a reacher. On 5/7/25 at 9:36 AM Staff 12 (LPN) stated…
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 · D2025-05-09 · tag F0605 — failed to not use drugs as a restraint — isolatedPrevent the use of unnecessary psychotropic medications or use medications that may restrain a resident's ability to function.
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 free from chemical restraints for 1 of 5 sampled residents (#57) reviewed for unnecessary medications. This placed residents at risk for changes to psychosocial well-being. Findings include: Resident #57 was admitted to the facility in 2/2025 with diagnoses including anxiety, hallucinations, and disorientation. A 3/31/25 physician order indicated Resident 57 was prescribed haloperidol Oral Tablet 5 MG (antipsychotic medication) twice daily as needed for 14 days. The Indication for use was hallucinations. A 4/14/25 physician order indicated Resident 57 was prescribed haloperidol Oral Tablet 5 MG twice daily as needed for 14 days. Indications for use were hallucinations or aggression. A 4/21/25 physician order indicated Resident 57 was prescribed haloperidol Oral Tablet 5 MG twice daily as needed for 14 days. Indications for use were hallucinations or aggression. Resident 57's MAR, behavior monitor and progress notes for 4/2025 and 5/2025 indicated she/he received haloperidol with no…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-05-09 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
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 develop comprehensive care plans that included interventions for the use of psychotropic medication for 1 of 5 sampled resident (#57) reviewed for unnecessary medications. This placed the resident at risk for side effects and unnecessary medication. Findings include: Resident 57 was admitted to the facility in 2/2025 with diagnoses including anxiety, hallucinations and disorientation. A review of Resident 57's physician orders found the following active orders for psychotropic medications: Buspirone HCl oral tablet. Give 15 mg by mouth in the morning for irritability related to anxiety disorder, unspecified and give 15 mg by mouth one time a day for irritability at 4 PM. Do not give at 6 PM per provider. Lamotrigine oral tablet. Give 25 mg by mouth one time a day for mood stabilization related to major depressive disorder, recurrent. Mirtazapine Oral tablet. Give 7.5 mg by mouth one time a day related to insomnia. Duloxetine HCl oral capsule delayed release sprinkle 30 MG. Give 1 capsule by mouth one time…
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 · D2025-05-09 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to timely assess and implement appropriate interventions for a change of condition or accident for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#27). This placed the residents at risk for choking. Findings include: Resident 27 admitted to the facility in 10/2019 with diagnoses including stroke. Resident 27's 4/20/25 comprehensive assessment noted coughing and choking during meals and when swallowing medications. A 4/18/25 physician orders revealed Resident 27 was on a dental/mechanical soft texture, nectar thick liquids consistency. A 5/2/25 progress note found Resident 27 choked during dinner and the Heimlich maneuver was administered successfully by Staff 28 (LPN). A 5/5/25 physician order revealed Resident 27's diet was changed to a pureed texture, three days after Resident 27's choking episode On 5/8/25 at 3:42 PM Staff 28 stated during dinner on 5/2/25 Resident 27 choked and became very rigid. Staff 28 did the Heimlich maneuver with a CNA and Resident 27 recovered. Staff 28 notified the on-call provider and stated she…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-05-09 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide care planned safety interventions for 1 of 4 sampled residents (#24) reviewed for accidents. This placed residents at risk for injury. Findings include: Resident 24 was admitted to the facility in 2018 with diagnoses including Wernicke's encephalopathy (a neurological disorder) and dementia. Resident 24's 4/30/25 Quarterly Smoking Evaluation indicated the resident was to use smoking gloves when smoking. A review of Resident 24's 5/2/25 Quarterly MDS Assessment revealed she/he had moderate cognitive impairment. Resident 24's 8/7/22 Care Plan indicated she/he used smoking materials and was to wear smoking gloves when smoking. On 5/6/25 at 8:33 AM Resident 24 was observed smoking in the facility designated smoking area without smoking gloves on. On 5/6/25 at 8:35 AM Resident 24 stated she/he was not wearing her/his smoking gloves because staff did not offer to provide them to her/him. On 5/6/25 at 8:36 AM Staff 18 (CNA) confirmed Resident 24 was smoking without her/his smoking gloves on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-05-09 · tag F0699 — isolatedProvide care or services that was trauma informed and/or culturally competent.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents received trauma informed care for 2 of 3 sampled residents (#s 18 and 30) reviewed for behavioral and emotional care needs. This placed residents at risk for re-traumatization. Findings include: The facility's 10/2022 Trauma Informed Care Policy and Procedure revealed the following: -Screen residents for a traumatic event, series of events, or set of circumstances which resulted in actual harm or threat of harm. Determine how the individual perceives the event, as stressful or not. Evaluate how the event adversely impacts the person. -Collaborate with the resident and/or resident advocate to plan for treatment or intervention(s) of resident choice, as indicated and/or appropriate. -Person-centered care planning addresses the following: a. Identify the effects of the trauma on the resident and how that may be manifested in a resident's behavior. b. Address triggers for re-traumatizing and interventions to avoid such an experience, such as loud noises, smells, textures, cold/hot,…
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 · D2025-05-09 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolatedEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to act upon pharmacist recommendations for 1 of 5 sampled residents (#57) reviewed for unnecessary medications. This placed residents at risk for a decrease in their quality of life. Findings include: Resident 57 was admitted to the facility on 2/2025 with diagnoses including anxiety, hallucinations and disorientation. A review of Resident 57's physician orders found an active order for Olanzapine oral tablet disintegrating (an antipsychotic medication). Give 15 mg by mouth one time a day related to hallucinations. A review of pharmacy recommendations for Resident 57 dated 3/19/25 included the following recommendation for the use of Olanzapine: 'If the antipsychotic order is to continue, please update the medical record to include . a list of symptoms or target behaviors (e.g., hallucinations) including their impact on the resident (e.g., increases distress, presents a danger to the resident or others, interferes with their ability to eat) AND documentation that other causes (e.g., environmental) and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-05-09 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolatedEnsure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review it was determined that the facility failed to ensure residents were free from unnecessary bowel and antihypotensive medications for 2 of 5 sampled resident (#s 20 and 35) reviewed for unnecessary medications. This placed the resident at risk for adverse side effects from medication complications. Findings include: 1. Resident 20 was admitted to the facility in 3/2025 with the diagnosis including hypotension. Resident 20's 3/21/25 through 4/22/25 Physician Orders indicated the resident received midodrine (used to raise blood pressure) three times daily and was to be held for SBP (systolic blood pressure) greater than 120. A review of Resident 20's 3/2025 and 4/2025 MARs revealed Resident 20 received the midodrine on the following dates with the SBP above 120: -3/23/2025 AM dose, SBP was 122. -3/23/2025 AM dose, SBP was 122. -3/24/2025 Mid-day dose, SBP was 121. -3/27/2025 AM dose, SBP was 131. -3/27/2025 Mid-day dose, SBP was 131. -3/27/2025 PM dose, SBP was 130. -3/29/2025 PM dose, SBP was 127. -3/31/2025 PM dose, SBP was 132. -4/11/2025 AM dose,…
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 · D2025-05-09 · tag F0825 — isolatedProvide or get specialized rehabilitative services as required for a resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide therapy services for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#28) reviewed for falls. This placed residents at risk for falls. Findings include: Resident 28 was admitted to the facility in 8/2020 with diagnoses including dementia. A review of Resident 28's Physician Orders revealed an 4/8/25 order for PT to evaluate due to frequent falls. On 5/5/25 at 10:15 AM a motion detector alarm was heard going off in Resident 28's room. Resident 28 was observed standing at her/his bedside and turning the alarm off. On 5/8/25 at 10:20 AM Staff 26 (RN) stated Resident 28 had multiple falls in 4/2025, no falls in 3/2025, and two falls in 2/2025. Staff 26 stated Resident 28 had frequent falls related to self-transferring and weakness. On 5/8/25 at 11:06 AM Staff 2 (DNS) stated Resident 28 had eight falls in 4/2025. Staff 2 stated Resident 28's falls were related to Resident 28's impulsiveness and self-transferring. Staff 2 stated Resident 28 was on therapy in 3/2025 and therapy had ordered Resident 28 a wheelchair to help…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-05-09 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews and record review, it was determined the facility failed to protect the resident's right to be free from physical abuse from other residents for 1 of 6 sampled residents (#52) reviewed for abuse. This placed residents at risk for physical abuse. Findings include: Resident 49 was admitted to the facility in 5/2023 with diagnoses including schizoaffective disorder (a mental health condition where a person experiences symptoms of schizophrenia, such as hallucinations and delusions, and a mood disorder, such as mania or depression). Resident 52 was admitted to the facility in 1/2024 with diagnoses including psychosis (a state where a person loses touch with reality, experiencing hallucinations and delusions). On 1/22/25 a Facility Reported Incident (FRI) was received by the State Survey Agency, which alleged Resident 49 slapped Resident 52 on the left side of her/his face. A 1/22/25 Progress Note indicated Resident 49 hit Resident 52 in the face. A 1/27/25 facility investigation revealed 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.
Show the remaining 13 citations
- Potential for harm · D2025-05-09 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to report an allegation of abuse to the State Agency (SA) within the mandated timeframe for 1 of 6 sampled residents (#2) reviewed for abuse. This placed residents at risk for abuse. Findings include: The facility's Freedom from Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation policy, last revised 8/1/23, indicated the following: -Allegations of verbal, sexual, physical, mental, corporal punishment, involuntary seclusion, and neglect of the resident, as well as mistreatment, injuries of unknown source, exploitation, deprivation of goods and services by staff, and misappropriation of resident property are reported to the administrator immediately and the state agency within two hours if there was alleged abuse or serious bodily injury as a result of an event. Resident 2 was admitted to the facility in 10/2019 with diagnoses including schizophrenia (a mental disorder characterized by disruptions in thought processes, perceptions, emotional responsiveness, and social interactions) and history of traumatic brain injury. 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 · E2024-01-17 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — patternHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to determine if residents had or wished to formulate an advance directive upon admission to the facility for 3 of 3 sampled residents (#s 9, 18 and 56) reviewed for advance directives. This placed residents at risk for not having their health care wishes honored. Findings include: 1. Resident 9 was re-admitted to the facility in 6/2023 with a diagnosis of suicidal ideations. A review of Resident 9's clinical record revealed no evidence the resident had an advance directive or wished to formulate an advance directive upon admission to the facility. On 1/12/24 at 10:57 AM Staff 3 (Social Services Director/Administrator in Training) was asked to provide evidence Resident 9 was asked if she/he had, or wished to formulate, an advance directive on admission to the facility. No additional information was provided. 2. Resident 18 was re-admitted to the facility in 12/2022 with a diagnosis of stroke. A review of Resident 18's clinical record revealed no evidence the resident had an advance directive or wished to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-01-17 · tag F0847 — patternInform resident or representatives choice to enter into binding arbitration agreement and right to refuse.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were fully informed and understood the binding arbitration agreement for 3 of 3 sampled residents (#s 42, 55 and 58) reviewed for binding arbitration agreement. This placed residents at risk of being uninformed regarding their legal rights. Findings include: The facility's undated admission Agreement included the following: The Resident and/or Legal Representative understands that his Arbitration Agreement may be rescinded by giving written notice to the Facility within 10 days of its execution, this Arbitration of its execution. If not rescinded within 10 days of its execution, this Arbitration Agreement shall remain in effect for all claims arising out of the Resident's stay at the Facility. If the acts underlying the dispute are committed prior to the revocation date, this Arbitration Agreement shall be binding with respect to said acts. THE UNDERSIGNED ACKNOWLEDGE THAT EACH OF THEM HAS READ THIS ARBITRATION AGREEMENT AND UNDERSTANDS THAT BY SIGNING THIS ARBITRATION AGREEMENT EACH HAS…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-01-17 · tag F0623 — isolatedProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure transfer notices with appeal rights were provided in writing to residents and their representatives, and to ensure the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman was notified of resident hospitalizations for 2 of 4 sampled residents (#s 36 and 50) reviewed for hospitalizations. This placed residents at risk of lack of access to an advocate to inform them of their options and rights, and a decreased quality of life. Findings include: 1. Resident 36 was admitted to the facility in 5/2022 with a diagnosis of bipolar schizoaffective disorder (mental illness that can affect thoughts, mood, and behavior). A review of Resident 36's 10/11/23 Quarterly MDS Assessment revealed she/he was cognitively intact. A review of Resident 36's nursing progress notes revealed she/he was discharged to the hospital on 6/28/23 due to hypokalemia (low blood potassium level) and was readmitted to the facility on [DATE]. No evidence was found in 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 · D2024-01-17 · tag F0625 — isolatedNotify the resident or the resident’s representative in writing how long the nursing home will hold the resident’s bed in cases of transfer to a hospital or therapeutic leave.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide residents with a written notice of the facility's bed-hold policy at the time of transfer to the hospital for 2 of 4 sampled residents (#s 36 and 50) reviewed for hospitalization. This placed residents at risk for lack of knowledge regarding their choices and potential financial responsibilities. Findings include: The facility's 11/28/17 Bed-Hold readmission policy indicated Facilities are required by Federal regulation to have policies addressing holding a resident's bed during periods of absence such as hospitalization or therapeutic leave. Additionally, facilities provide this written information about these policies to residents prior to and upon transfer for such absences. 1. Resident 36 was admitted to the facility in 5/2022 with a diagnosis of bipolar schizoaffective disorder (mental illness that can affect thoughts, mood, and behavior). A review of Resident 36's 10/11/23 Quarterly MDS Assessment revealed she/he was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-01-17 · tag F0661 — isolatedEnsure necessary information is communicated to the resident, and receiving health care provider at the time of a planned discharge.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to complete a discharge summary for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#59) reviewed for discharge. This placed residents at risk for unmet discharge needs. Findings include: Resident 59 was admitted to the facility in 6/2023 with a diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder (mental illness that can affect thoughts, mood, and behavior). The resident was discharged from the facility on 10/18/23 as a resident initiated discharge. A review of Resident 59's medical record indicated there was no discharge summary documentation. On 1/12/24 at 3:29 PM Staff 2 (DNS) was not able to provide documentation of a discharge summary for Resident 59. Staff 2 stated the facility did not discharge residents often and did not have a great discharge process in place.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-01-17 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure resident's records were complete and accurate for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#56) reviewed for change of condition. This placed residents at risk for incomplete clinical records. Findings include: Resident 56 was admitted to the facility in 7/2023 with a diagnosis of dementia. A Progress Note dated 12/19/23 indicated the resident was referred for hospice services but it was unclear if the referral was completed. A review of Resident 56's clinical record revealed no documentation of a hospice evaluation and determination. On 1/12/24 at 11:04 AM Staff 2 (DNS) verified the hospice services evaluation was not in Resident 56's clinical record.
- Potential for harm · E2022-12-07 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure staff performed appropriate and adequate hand hygiene during meal delivery for 1 of 2 halls observed during dining. This placed residents at risk for infection. Findings include: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website section titled, Hand Hygiene in Healthcare Settings indicated healthcare personnel should use an alcohol based hand rub (ABHR) or wash with soap and water immediately after touching a patient and the patient's immediate environment. Healthcare facilities should require healthcare personnel to perform hand hygiene in accordance with CDC recommendations. The facility's 2/11/22 Hand Hygiene Policy and Procedure indicated hand hygiene was the single most important procedure for preventing the spread of infection. Hand hygiene consists of either washing with soap and water or ABHR. Opportunities for hand hygiene included before entering a resident room, before preparing food and before handling food. On 11/29/22 from 11:30 AM to 11:38 AM Staff 9 (CNA),…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2022-12-07 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were free from abuse for 2 of 4 sampled residents (#s 11 and 41) reviewed for abuse. This placed residents at risk for physical abuse by other residents. Findings include: 1. The facility's Preventing Abuse Policy and Procedure revised on 7/13/18 revealed the facility had a process to prevent abuse which included monitoring residents with behaviors. Resident 41 was admitted to the facility in 11/2021 with diagnoses including Parkinson's disease and schizophrenia. Resident 41's 9/2022 Quarterly MDS assessment revealed she/he had a BIMS of 15 (cognitively intact). Resident 42 was admitted to the facility in 1/2021 with diagnoses including aphasia (a loss of ability to understand or express speech) after having a stroke. Resident 42's 7/2022 Annual MDS assessment revealed she/he had a BIMS of 15 (cognitively intact). The facility's 10/15/22 Resident to Resident Event Assessment revealed on 10/15/22 at 4:46 PM Resident 41 reported to staff she/he was hit by Resident 42 and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2022-12-07 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure the environment was free from potential accident hazards for 2 of 2 residents (#s 48 and 51) reviewed for smoking. This placed residents at risk for potential accidents. Findings include: 1. Resident 48 was admitted to the facility in 1/2021 with diagnoses including stroke and dementia. Resident 48's care plan dated 8/1/22 identified the resident to be at risk for non-compliance related to smoking and holding smoking paraphernalia. Interventions included direction to relinquish smoking paraphernalia when Resident 48 was found smoking independently. The care plan further indicated staff were to keep all smoking paraphernalia locked up in a separate storage container for safety and encouraged Resident 48 to smoke during designated smoking times. A Smoking assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident 48 was a dependent smoker who was unable to safely hold and maintain smoking devices in a designated smoking area and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2022-12-07 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolatedEnsure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were free from unnecessary antibiotics for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#27) reviewed for antibiotic use. This placed residents at risk for adverse medication effects and antibiotic resistance. Findings include: Resident 27 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including schizophrenia. Resident 27's 10/28/22 admission Orders included an order for Bactrim (antibiotic) 400-80 mg daily for UTI prophylaxis (prevention) for 90 days with a start date of 8/4/22. Resident 27's 11/2022 and 12/2022 signed physician orders revealed orders for Bactrim to start on 11/3/22 and the orders did not include a stop date for the Bactrim. Resident 27's 11/2022 and 12/2022 MARs revealed the resident received Bactrim everyday from 11/3/22 through 12/2/22 for a total of 120 days, which exceeded the prescribed duration by 31 days. On 12/2/22 at 12:16 PM Staff 6 (RNCM) reviewed Resident 27's admission order for Bactrim. Staff 6…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-12-07 · tag F0806 — failed to honor food preferences — isolatedEnsure each resident receives and the facility provides food that accommodates resident allergies, intolerances, and preferences, as well as appealing options.
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 honor food choices for one of two sampled residents (#32) reviewed for choices. This placed residents at risk of not being allowed to make choices related to their food preferences. Findings include: Resident 32 was admitted to the facility in 12/2020 with diagnoses including schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type (a mental health disorder which includes episodes of mania and sometimes major depression). On 11/29/22 at 1:49 PM Resident 32 stated she/he did not like scrambled eggs. She/he stated she/he told caregivers she/he did not like eggs and could not eat them but the kitchen continued to give her/him scrambled eggs. On 12/1/22 at 8:17 AM Resident 32 was observed in her/his room with breakfast. Her/his tray contained scrambled eggs. Resident 32 stated she/he spoke with Staff 8 (Social Service Manager) about her/his food preferences and dislike for eggs. A review of Resident 32's 12/2/22 meal tickets revealed scrambled eggs listed as an item the resident disliked. On 12/2/22 at 1:14 PM…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2022-12-07 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure accurate resident medical records for 2 of 2 sampled residents (#s 11 and 46) reviewed for pre-admission screening with serious mental illness. This placed residents with mental health diagnoses at risk for a lack of appropriate mental health services. Findings include: A PASRR (Preadmission Screening and Resident Review) Level I is an assessment completed prior to admission to a Medicaid Certified Nursing Facility to determine if an individual has a mental illness or intellectual disability. 1. Resident 11 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. The signed 4/20/22 Pre-admission Screening/Resident Review (PASRR) Level 1 form revealed Resident 11 had no serious mental illness indicators. The 4/20/22 admission MDS assessment revealed Resident 11 was diagnosed with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder diagnoses and she/he received antipsychotics. On 12/1/22 at 5:00 PM Staff…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership Data Not Available |
The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
What families pay in OR
CMS lists this home as Medicaid-certified only — it can accept Medicaid for long-term care, but it is not Medicare-certified, so Medicare will not pay for a short rehabilitation (“skilled nursing”) stay here. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Oregon Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 38E174. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-05-09, 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.