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

Avamere Rehabilitation Of Cascade Park

801 Southeast Park Crest Avenue, Vancouver, WA 98683 · For profit - Corporation · 88 certified beds · (360) 260-2200 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (360) 260-2200 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Abuse-prevention, restraint, or reporting citation — no harm found (F0604) — cited Nov 20251 actual-harm citation
Insights

The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.

In its favor
  • a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
  • no federal fines or payment denials on record
  • a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
  • lower-than-typical staff turnover (27% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
  • fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
Worth asking about
  • it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0604) — 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 (32) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags

One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.

A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.

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

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★★ 3/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
ZoomCare0.7 mi
902 SE 164th Ave · (503) 684-8252 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
Walgreens0.7 mi
13503 SE Mill Plain Blvd · (360) 256-9875 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
Park
522 SE 155th Ave · (360) 487-8177 · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship
Wuagner,SG<0.1 mi
900 SE Park Crest Ave · (360) 772-5440

Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.

Quality measures — how residents actually fare

Overall quality measures 4 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 5 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.

Overall rating5★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased14.1%14.2%15.4%typical
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight5.5%5.5%5.4%typical
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder5.5%1.0%0.9%worse
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection0.7%1.6%2.0%better
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms2.4%17.7%6.5%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.1%0.1%better
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury0.7%2.6%3.3%better
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened24.3%17.2%16.1%worse
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication16.4%12.4%18.9%better
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%93.8%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers6.1%4.3%4.7%worse
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control24.6%22.5%21.2%worse
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table9.7%15.1%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication1.4%1.3%1.4%typical
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine96.9%82.0%79.4%better
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission26.1%19.9%22.6%worse
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit19.8%13.4%12.0%worse

On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.

§ 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.

62.3% 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 246 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

62.3%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
10.6%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
63.2%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.72U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.38hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.27hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.07hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 63.2% 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 87 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 0.72 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 92% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 25% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.

This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.

See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF62.3%CMS range 56.5–68.251.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024better than U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF10.6%CMS range 8.5–13.310.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge63.2%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge60.9%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge51.7%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified100.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting100.0%100.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 discharge100.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 stay1.6%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened3.3%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization7.0%CMS range 4.3–10.47.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs0.851.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS makes no comparison for this measure

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

Staffing

1.15
RN hours/ resident / day
0.96
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.65
Aide hours/ resident / day
4.76
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.74
RN hoursweekends
27.4%
Total nursing turnover
30.0%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 88 beds and averages 81.6 residents a day — about 93% occupied, or roughly 6 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.76 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.15 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.65 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 4.29 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.95 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.31 to 0.74 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 27% 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

7
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2025-11-21)
10
at the previous standard inspection (2024-08-09)

Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.

Inspection deficiencies

State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

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

32 citations, most serious first. The 11 most serious are shown; the remaining 21 are one tap away and print in full.

  • Actual harm · G2024-08-09 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolated
    Provide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
    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, the facility failed to ensure pressure ulcers were thoroughly assessed, consistently monitored, and skin care and treatment were provided timely to promote healing of an existing pressure ulcer and prevent development of a new pressure ulcer for 1 of 6 sample residents (51) reviewed for pressure ulcers. Resident 51 experienced harm when an existing pressure ulcer on the coccyx worsened and a new pressure ulcer developed to the right buttock and upper thigh area that became infected and required hospital treatment. This failure placed residents at risk for deterioration in skin conditions, discomfort and a diminished quality of life. Finding included . The (corporation) Wound Management Guidelines, dated 08/25/2020, noted the following: --Skin checks are completed by Licensed nurse weekly. CAN/NAC/Shower aides (nursing assistants) will report any alterations in skin identified during routine care. --If a Resident is identified to have a new skin alteration the…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-03-04 · tag F0628 — isolated
    Provide the required documentation or notification related to the resident's needs, appeal rights, or bed-hold policies.
    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, the facility failed to provide a safe and orderly discharge for 1 of 1 residents (Resident 1) reviewed for admission, transfer, and discharge. This failure placed residents at risk of lack of stable housing and disruption of continuity of care.Findings included. Record review of facility policy Discharge Planning, dated 01/09/2002, stated that once discharge was anticipated, Social Services shall arrange or assist in arranging necessary services and shall identify discharge location, supports, and equipment arranged. The policy further stated that for residents without an identified discharge location, the facility will enlist the support of the assigned Medicaid case manager and other public agencies to secure appropriate housing. Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including atherosclerosis of coronary artery bypass graft(s) (plaque buildup and narrowing in blood vessels that were surgically placed to improve blood flow to the heart).Record…

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

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-12-03 · tag F0627 — isolated
    Ensure the transfer/discharge meets the resident's needs/preferences and that the resident is prepared for a safe transfer/discharge.
    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 record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a safe and appropriate discharge for 1 of 3 former residents (Resident 1) reviewed for discharge. As a result of this failure, Resident 1 experienced harm when she was discharged without necessary supports, which led to complications from an existing stage 4 sacral wound requiring hospitalization for symptom management.Findings included.Resident 1 was admitted to the facility 07/09/2025 with multiple diagnoses including sepsis (a systemic infection), acute cystitis (bladder infection), encephalopathy (disease or damage of the brain) , Parkinson's (progressive movement disorder), stage 4 sacral pressure wound (deep wound exposing muscle, tendon or bone) and adult failure to thrive (gradual decline in physical and mental health leading to significant weight loss and function). The Minimum Data Set (MDS), a comprehensive assessment tool, dated 07/15/2025, documented the resident required partial to moderate assistance with upper-body dressing 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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-11-21 · tag F0604 — failed to not use physical restraints improperly — isolated
    Ensure that each resident is free from the use of physical restraints, unless needed for medical treatment.
    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, the facility failed to obtain a Safety Device Evaluation and Consent and/or physician's order for 2 of 4 sampled residents (Resident 75 & 112) reviewed for physical restraints. This failure placed residents at risk of injury, unmet needs, and a diminished quality of life.Findings included. Record review of the facility's policy titled, Restraint and Device Guideline, undated, documented, When a safety device is determined to be needed to provide a safe environment for the resident the RCM [Resident Care Manager] or designee will:A. Complete or update the Safety Device Assessment.B. Notify the Physician of evaluation and obtain needed order.C. Notify the resident and/or Responsible Party.I. The Responsible Party may give consent over the phone.E. Initiate Care Plan and update Kardex. 1) Resident 75 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (an assessment tool), dated 09/30/2025, showed resident 75 was severely cognitively impaired.…

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

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-11-21 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
    Develop 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

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan for 3 of 14 sampled residents (Resident 75, 19, & 71) reviewed for physical restraints, behavior-emotional, dementia care, and unnecessary medications. This failure placed residents at risk for risk of injury, unmet care needs, and a diminished quality of life. Findings included. 1) Resident 75 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses to include Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD, a mental health condition that can develop after a person experiences or witnesses a traumatic event.) The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS, an assessment tool), dated 09/30/2025, showed resident 75 was severely cognitively impaired and had a diagnosis of PTSD. Physical Restraints In an observation on 11/17/2025 at 2:26 PM, Resident 75's bed was observed low to the ground, about three to four inches off the floor. In an observation on 11/20/2025 at 9:08 AM, Resident 75 was observed lying in bed with the bed…

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

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-11-21 · tag F0676 — failed to keep up residents' daily-living abilities — isolated
    Ensure residents do not lose the ability to perform activities of daily living unless there is a medical reason.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents received restorative aid (RA) services for 1 of 3 residents (Resident 8) reviewed for activities of daily living. These failures placed residents at risk for further decline and a diminished quality of life.Findings included.Review of the facility's policy titled, Restorative Services, dated 01/11/2005, showed; It is the policy of this facility to provide its residents the restorative services in an effort to maintain the residents highest level of self-care and independence. 2.Each resident in the program shall receive, including but not limited to, muscular exercises, mental stimulation and improvement in independent living activities of daily living.Resident 8 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses. Resident 8's quarterly Minimum Data Set (an assessment tool), dated 09/12/2025, indicated Resident 8 was severely cognitively impaired and showed Resident 8 had one day of Restorative Nursing Program services for…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-11-21 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
    Provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to implement physician orders and/or care plans for 1 of 5 residents (Resident 71) reviewed for weights and 1 of 4 residents (Resident 112) reviewed for physical restraints. This failure placed residents at risk of injury, unmet care needs, and a diminished quality of life.Findings included . 1) Physical Restraints Resident 112 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Record review of Resident 112's BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status, a screening tool used to evaluate a resident's cognitive function and identify the presence and severity of cognitive impairment), dated 11/18/2025, showed Resident 112 was moderately cognitively impaired. Record review of Resident 112's Assistive Device care plan, dated 11/12/2025, documented, .Mobility bar/ 1/4 size side rail to right side only to assist w/ [with] stability during transfers and mobility. Resident requires assistive device d/t [due to] Gait unsteady, intermittent dizziness/vertigo…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-11-21 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolated
    Ensure 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, the facility failed to monitor for adverse side effects for antianxiety medication (fast-acting prescription medication used primarily for its calming and sedative effects) for 1 of 5 residents (Resident 19) reviewed for unnecessary medication. This failure placed residents at risk for experiencing side effects and a diminished quality of life.Findings included .Resident 19 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses to include Dementia (loss of brain function that includes memory and thinking abilities that are severe enough to interfere with daily life). The Significant Change Minimum Data Set (an assessment tool) dated 10/21/2025, showed Resident 19 was severely cognitively impaired and was on an antianxiety medication.Record review of Resident 19's physician order, dated 10/18/2025, showed Resident 19 was prescribed Lorazepam 0.5mg (milligram) as needed for anxiety. The October and November 2025 electronic medication administration record showed…

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

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-11-21 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to use personal protective equipment (PPE, gloves, gown and/or mask) on 1 of 1 resident (Resident 11) reviewed for transmission-based precautions (infection control measures). This failure placed residents at risk of infection transmission and a diminished quality of life.Findings included .Resident 11 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (an assessment tool) dated 8/30/2025, showed Resident 11 was alert and oriented and was dependent on staff for transfers using a Hoyer (mechanical) lift.Record review of Resident 11's physician order, dated 11/18/2028, showed Resident 11 was on contact precautions (measures that are intended to prevent transmission of infectious agents).In an observation on 11/21/2025 at 8:58 AM, Staff J, Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) was observed transferring Resident 11 from her bed to a stretcher without wearing an isolation gown. Staff K, CNA, was observed assisting Staff J to transfer…

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

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-10-07 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolated
    Ensure 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, the facility failed to ensure adequate blood sugar monitoring was provided for the administration of oral diabetic medications for 1 of 4 sampled residents [1] reviewed for unnecessary medications. This failure placed residents at risk for not receiving needed medication adjustments and a decline in health status. Findings included . A facility policy and procedure for blood glucose monitoring, revised November 2020, documented Follow the provider orders for glucose monitoring. Examples for various situations may include: 1. For the resident on oral medication(s) who is well controlled, monitor blood glucose levels at least twice weekly. 2. For the resident receiving oral medication(s) who is poorly controlled, monitor blood glucose levels twice to four times daily as needed. Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Hypoglycemia, Unspecified and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Without Complications. The Minimum Data Set assessment, dated…

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

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-08-09 · tag F0604 — failed to not use physical restraints improperly — pattern
    Ensure that each resident is free from the use of physical restraints, unless needed for medical treatment.
    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, the facility failed to ensure an assessment, consent and/or physician order was obtained for beds being against the wall and bed rails for 4 of 5 sampled residents (5, 31, 61, & 189) reviewed for physical restraints. This failure placed residents at risk for injury, unmet needs, and a diminished quality of life. Findings included . Record review of the facility's policy entitled, Use of Restraints, revised April 2017, documented, 1. Physical Restraints' are defined as any manual method or physical or mechanical device, material, or equipment attached or adjacent to the resident's body that the individual cannot remove easily, which restricts freedom of movement or restricts normal access to one's body . 9. Restraints shall only be used upon the written order of a physician and after obtaining consent from the resident and/or representative . 1) Resident 5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including right leg below knee amputation. The…

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

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
Show the remaining 21 citations
  • Potential for harm · D2024-08-09 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolated
    Honor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY . Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure care and services were provided in a manner that promoted residents' dignity related to urinary catheter (a tube inserted into the bladder that drains urine into a bag outside of the body) care for 2 of 2 sampled residents (Residents 11 & 39) reviewed for urinary catheter. This failure placed residents at risk for embarrassment, diminished self-worth, and a decreased quality of life. Findings included . 1) Resident 11 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The modification of admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 06/27/2024, documented Resident 11 was moderately cognitively impaired and had an indwelling catheter. Resident 11's Alteration in Elimination Care Plan, dated 06/26/2024, documented .Keep drainage bag covered for dignity. Resident 11's Indwelling Catheter Care Plan, dated 07/26/2024, revised 08/07/2024, documented .drainage bag to remain covered . On 08/05/2024 at 3:59 PM, Resident 11 was observed sleeping…

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

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-08-09 · tag F0553 — failed to let residents help plan their care — isolated
    Allow resident to participate in the development and implementation of his or her person-centered plan of care.
    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, the facility failed to ensure residents and/or their representatives were offered the opportunity to participate in care conferences for 1 of 6 sampled residents (53) reviewed for right to participate in planning care. This failure placed residents at risk of a diminished quality of life when not allowed to be involved in their long-term care needs. Findings included . Resident 53 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 06/18/2024, showed the resident was alert and oriented. The electronic health records (EHR) showed a care conference was conducted on 03/25/2024, and no other care conferences were documented. The EHR showed Resident 53 had a quarterly MDS assessment, dated 06/18/2024. On 08/08/2024 at 10:27 AM, Staff K, Social Services Coordinator, said care conferences were done at the residents' request, significant change or quarterly. At 10:49 AM, Staff M, Social Services Director, said she expected care…

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

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-08-09 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolated
    Honor 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

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY . Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide and/or have procedures in place to assist with completing advance directives (AD), and obtaining and maintaining Durable Power of Attorney (DPOA) documentation for 1 of 6 sampled residents (53) reviewed for ADs. This failure place residents at risk for losing their right to have their healthcare preferences and/or decisions honored. Findings included . Resident 53 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment, dated 06/18/2024, showed the resident was alert and oriented. Resident 53's electronic health record did not show an ADs or documentation that ADs were reviewed since March 2024, almost five months since the last review. Resident 53's care plan interventions, dated 03/19/2024, documented: Patient does not want to execute an Advance Directive at this time. On 08/08/2024 at 10:27 AM, Staff K, Social Services Coordinator, said Resident 53 did not want to generate an AD, but an AD should have been…

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

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-08-09 · tag F0585 — failed to handle grievances — isolated
    Honor the resident's right to voice grievances without discrimination or reprisal and the facility must establish a grievance policy and make prompt efforts to resolve grievances.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY . Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a timely response and/or resolution to resident concerns about lost items was completed for 2 of 7 sampled residents (50 & 286) reviewed for grievances. This failure placed residents at risk for not having their concerns addressed, increased frustration and a decreased quality of life. Findings included . Record review of the facility's Lost Item Policy documented, if an item was missing, the resident or responsible party was expected to inform a staff member and/or fill out a Lost, Misplaced, Damaged Item form, which was then forwarded to Social Services. Social Services would initiate a search for the item and if the item was not recovered in the initial search (within three business days), Social Services staff would note the action taken on the Lost Item form and forward this form to the Administrator to determine further action needed. The administrator would notify the resident within five business days once a determination…

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

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-08-09 · tag F0625 — isolated
    Notify 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, the facility failed to provide a written Bed-Hold notice to the resident or resident's representative at the time of transfer to the hospital for 2 of 6 sampled residents (36 & 31) reviewed for notices of bed holds. This failure placed residents at risk for lack of knowledge regarding their right to hold their bed while in the hospital. Findings included . 1) Resident 36 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 06/13/2024, showed the resident was severely cognitively impaired. The electronic health records (EHR) documented Resident 36 transferred to an acute hospital on [DATE]. No documentation was noted showing contact was made to the resident or resident's family regarding a Bed-Hold. On 08/07/2024 at 2:18 PM, Staff F, Admissions Coordinator, said when a resident was admitted to the hospital, admissions contacted the resident or the resident representative and covered the bed-hold agreement with them. Staff F said the…

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

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-08-09 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
    Develop 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

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY . Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive person-centered care plan was developed and implemented for focused areas of care for 1 of 2 sampled residents (61) reviewed for care plans related to skin conditions. This failure placed residents at risk for unmet care needs and a diminished quality of life. Findings included . Resident 61 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The Modification of admission Minimum Data Set assessment, dated 06/30/2024, documented Resident 61 was alert and oriented and had an open lesion(s) on the foot. Record review of Resident 61's physician orders, dated 07/12/2024, documented: 1) Left lateral ankle abrasion: Cleanse with wound cleanser, skin prep periwound [tissue surrounding a wound], apply foam dressing. Change 3 times per week and as needed. every evening shift every other day for Wound care. 2) Right great toe abrasion: Cleanse with wound cleanser, skin prep periwound, apply hydrofera blue [an antibacterial wound…

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

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-08-09 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
    Provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY . Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure necessary care and services were provided for positioning in a wheelchair for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#21) reviewed for quality of care related to positioning. This failure placed residents at risk for unmet care needs, discomfort, a diminished quality of life and being unable to attain or maintain their highest practicable level of well-being. Findings included . Resident 21 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Inclusion Body Myositis (IBM). The quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment, dated 07/18/2024, showed Resident 21 was alert and oriented, had functional impairment on both sides, and required a motorized wheelchair for mobility once he is out of bed. The care plan, dated 12/16/2022, showed the resident has impaired physical mobility due to weakness requiring two person assist with a hoyer lift. The use of adaptive equipment to include power wheelchair for mobility. On 08/05/2024 at 11:28 AM,…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-08-09 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY . Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure infection control and prevention practices were implemented for hand hygiene during a clean technique dressing change and during care of catheter bags for 2 of 8 sampled residents (Residents 51 & 11) reviewed for infection prevention and control. This failure placed residents at risk for wound infection, health complications and a diminished quality of life. Findings included . 1) Resident 51 was admitted on [DATE]. The 5-day admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 11/29/2023, showed Resident 51 was alert and oriented, required one person assist with bed mobility, was assessed to be at risk of developing pressure ulcers, and had a healing Stage 2 pressure ulcer to the coccyx. The quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Resident 51 had one Stage 4 pressure ulcer to the right ischium (buttock and upper thigh). Resident 51's medical record showed the wound was first documented on 12/21/2023 measuring 2.67 cm (centimeter) x…

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

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2023-10-10 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — pattern
    Provide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY . Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide restorative nursing services to prevent potential avoidable reduction of range of motion (ROM) and mobility for 7 of 10 sampled residents (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7) reviewed for ROM/mobility services. This failure placed residents at risk for increased contractures and decreased quality of life. Findings included . 1) Resident 1 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including hemiplegia and hemiparesis (muscle weakness or partial paralysis on one side of the body) affecting the left side. A contracture (a condition of shortening and hardening of muscles and tendons often leading to deformity and rigidity of joints), unspecified hand, was added to Resident 1's diagnosis on 01/30/2023. The Minimum Data Set, a comprehensive assessment tool, dated 02/21/2023, documented Resident 1 required extensive 1-2-person assistance with bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toilet use and hygiene. The resident restorative nursing program task list…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · F2023-09-22 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespread
    Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure cold food items, served to resident, were held at the proper cold holding temperature; and failed to maintain and document refrigerator temperatures for 3 of 3 unit refrigerators reviewed for food service. These failures placed residents at risk of food-borne illness and a diminished quality of life. Findings included . <Cold Holding Temperatures> On 09/20/2023 at 11:40 AM, Staff D, Dietary Manager, was observed temping cold food item (cole slaw) using a facility thermometer. The cole slaw temped at 47.6 degrees Fahrenheit (F). When asked what the process for food that was not at cold holding temperatures, Staff D said the cole slaw should be at 41 degrees F or below. Staff D said they would return it to the refrigerator to get it to the correct temperature and put food on ice to help cool it down. Staff D obtained a shallow metal pan, placed ice in the metal pan and then placed approximately 12 cups of cole slaw on the ice and returned the rest of the food containers to the refrigerator. At 12:08 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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-09-22 · tag F0553 — failed to let residents help plan their care — pattern
    Allow resident to participate in the development and implementation of his or her person-centered plan of care.
    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, record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure a care conference was held within 72 hours of admission and on a regular basis for 4 of 4 sampled residents (Residents (R) 40, R333, R55, and R71) reviewed for care conferences. This failure placed residents at risk of being uninformed regarding their care and services. Findings include . Review of the facility policy titled, Resident Participation-Assessment/Care Plans, dated February 2021, revealed, . The resident and his or her representative are encouraged to participate in the resident's assessment and in the development and implementation of the resident's care plan . Facility staff supports and encourages resident/representative participation in the care planning process by . ensuring that residents, representatives and families understand the care planning process holding care planning meetings at times of day when the resident, representative and family members can attend and are functioning at their best .…

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

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2023-09-22 · tag F0572 — pattern
    Give residents a notice of rights, rules, services and charges.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents were provided notices of their resident rights, both orally and written, annually for five of five sampled residents (Resident (R) 49, R16, R28, R286, and R1) interviewed in the resident council. This had the potential to affect all 81 residents in the facility. Findings included . Review of the facility's policy entitled, Resident Rights, revised 02/2021, revealed, . Employee shall treat all residents with kindness, respect. and dignity. Federal and state laws guarantee certain basic rights to all residents of this facility. These rights include the resident's right to . Be informed about his or her rights and responsibilities . Orientation and in-service training programs are conducted quarterly to assist our employees in understanding our residents' rights. During a Resident Council meeting on 09/20/23 at 1:29 PM, R49, R16, R28, R286, and R1, who the facility determined to be cognitively intact and regularly participated in the facility's monthly Resident Council meetings,…

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

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2023-09-22 · tag F0574 — pattern
    The resident has the right to receive notices in a format and a language he or she understands.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on interview and observation, the facility failed to ensure 5 of 5 sampled residents (Resident (R) 49, R16, R28, R286, and R1) interviewed in the resident council were provided information and contact information for the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman program. This had the potential to affect all 81 residents in the facility. Findings included . During a resident council meeting on 09/20/23 at 1:29 PM, R49, R16, R28, R286, and R1, who the facility determined to be cognitively intact and to regularly participated in the facility's monthly Resident Council Meetings, stated they were not aware of the Ombudsman's contact information and/or any location of such information in the building. The residents said they were not aware or could not recall knowing about or having contact with an Ombudsman. During an interview on 09/20/23 at 2:11 PM, Staff F, Activities Director, indicated she did not know about the Ombudsman program or such a person coming to visit the building. Staff F indicated there was information posted in her office about an Ombudsman. During an interview on 09/20/23…

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

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2023-09-22 · tag F0577 — pattern
    Allow residents to easily view the nursing home's survey results and communicate with advocate agencies.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure 5 of 5 sampled residents (Resident (R) 49, R16, R28, R286, and R1) interviewed in the Resident Council meeting were familiar with their right to read the facility's survey results and knew where the results of the surveys were located. This had the potential to affect all 81 residents in the facility. Findings included . During a Resident Council meeting on 09/20/23 at 1:29 PM, R49, R16, R28, R286, and R1, who the facility determined to be cognitively intact and to regularly participate in the facility's monthly Resident Council meetings, stated they were not aware of their right to read the facility's survey results or where the survey book was located. During an interview on 09/20/23 at 2:11 PM, Staff F, Activities Director, said she did not know the state inspection survey results were supposed to be readily available to be read by residents or visitors. During an observation and interview on 09/20/23 at 2:59 PM with Staff A, Administrator, the survey results book was observed on a table at the entrance of the…

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

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2023-09-22 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — pattern
    Ensure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of 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 ensure 5 of 5 sampled residents (Resident (R) 49, R16, R28, R286, and R1) interviewed in the Resident Council meeting were provided the opportunity to choose their preferred meal. This had the potential to affect all 81 residents in the facility. Findings included . Review of Week 3 Menu Week at a Glane Report for: Regular, dated 03/16/2023 and provided by the facility as the menu for the week, showed tomato or chicken noodle soup, chef salad, grilled cheese sandwich, or turkey sandwich were options to the regular menu. Foods always available were listed as egg salad sandwich, peanut butter and jelly sandwich, fruit and cottage cheese plate, cottage cheese cup, apple sauce cup, yogurt, graham crackers, chips, fruit cup, peanut butter and crackers, cheese and crackers, Jell-o cup, banana, and pudding. Review of Resident Council meeting minutes, dated 04/26/2023, 05/25/2023, 06/06/2023, 07/18/2023, and 08/23/2023 and provided by the facility, showed . resident asking for more food options for meals . fruit with cereals 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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2023-09-22 · tag F0809 — failed to serve meals on a reasonable schedule — pattern
    Ensure meals and snacks are served at times in accordance with resident’s needs, preferences, and requests. Suitable and nourishing alternative meals and snacks must be provided for residents who want to eat at non-traditional times or outside of scheduled meal times.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed ensure 5 of 5 sampled residents (Resident (R) 49, R16, R28, R286, and R1) interviewed in the Resident Council meeting were aware of their right to ask for and receive snacks between meals and at bedtime. This had the potential to affect all 81 residents in the facility. Findings included . Review of the facility's policy entitled, Snacks (Between Meal and Bedtime), Servings dated 09/2010, revealed, . the purpose of this procedure is to provide the resident with adequate nutrition. Review the resident care plan and provide for any special needs for the resident. Check the tray before serving the snack to be sure that it is the correct diet ordered and that food consistency is appropriate to the residents' ability to chew and swallow . Review of Resident Council meeting minutes, dated 08/23/23 and provided by the facility, showed, . resident [sic] were asked about being offered snacks at bedtime and whenever you requested, and resident's answers were 'no' . During a Resident Council meeting on 09/20/23…

    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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2023-09-22 · tag F0847 — pattern
    Inform 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

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY . Based on interview, record review, and review of the facility's arbitration agreement, the facility failed to inform residents and/or their resident representative that signed arbitration agreements remained in effect for all care and services rendered at the facility even if such care and services were rendered following a discharge and readmission to the facility for 3 of 4 sampled residents and/or their resident representative (Resident (R) 24, R287, and R50) reviewed for arbitration agreements. Findings included . Review of a blank copy of the facility's Patient and Facility Arbitration Agreement. revised 04/2014 and provided by the facility, indicated, . The execution of this Arbitration Agreement is not a precondition to admission of the Patient to the Facility, and this Arbitration Agreement may be withdrawn by written notice to the Facility from the Patient within 30 days of signature. If not withdrawn within 30 days, this Arbitration Agreement shall remain in effect for all care and services rendered…

    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.

    Administration Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-09-22 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolated
    Honor 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

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY 2) Review of R48's admission Record, located in the Profile tab of the electronic medical record (EMR), revealed R48 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including fractures of the bones in his lower legs, end-stage renal disease, and was dependent on dialysis. Review of R48's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, located in the MDS tab of the EMR with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 07/27/2023, showed R48 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15, which indicated R48 was cognitively intact. Review of a Hospital DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) form, located in the Miscellaneous tab of the EMR, showed while in the hospital, R48 had a DNR order in place. There was no document located in the facility EMR, after R48 had been admitted , which indicated he had signed a POLST [Physician Order for Life-Sustaining Treatment] having the same wishes to have a DNR in place. During an interview on 09/20/2023 at 8:48 AM, Staff E stated, I believe the POLST did not come with the…

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

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-09-22 · tag F0623 — isolated
    Provide 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, the facility failed to provide a written notice of transfer to the resident and/or the resident's representative describing the reason for transfer for 3 of 5 sampled residents (17, 26 & 25) reviewed for transfer notifications regarding hospitalization. This failure placed residents and/or their representatives at risk of not being informed of the resident's condition, unmet care needs and a diminished quality of life. Findings included . 1) Resident 17 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 08/27/2023, documented the resident was cognitively intact. Resident 17's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) documented an emergent transfer to an acute-care hospital on [DATE]. Resident 17 returned to the facility on [DATE]. The EMR did not show documentation of a written notice of transfer for Resident 17. 2) Resident 26 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The Medicare 5-day MDS, dated [DATE], documented the resident 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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-09-22 · tag F0625 — isolated
    Notify 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, the facility failed to ensure a written bed-hold notice was provided to the resident or resident's representative at the time of transfer to the hospital for 1 of 5 sampled residents (26) reviewed for bed-hold notification. This failure placed residents and resident representatives at risk of not being informed regarding their right to hold their bed while in the hospital. Findings included . Resident 26 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The Medicare 5-day Minimum Data Set assessment, dated 07/17/2023, documented the resident was moderately cognitively impaired. Resident 26's EMR (Electronic Medical Record) documented an emergent transfer to an acute-care hospital on [DATE]. Resident 26 returned to the facility on [DATE]. The EMR did not show documentation of a bed hold for Resident 26. On 09/20/2023 at 10:04 AM, Staff M, Residential Care Manager and Registered Nurse (RN), said bed holds were completed by staff in the admissions department, not a task done by nurses.…

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

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • No harm found · C2025-11-21 · tag F0732 — widespread
    Post nurse staffing information every day.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure nursing hours were accurately posted and/or updated daily for 31 of 31 days reviewed for nurse staff postings. This failure placed residents, resident representatives, and visitors at risk of not being fully informed of the current staffing levels and census information.Findings Included.Record review of the Daily Staffing Hours postings, prior to being edited, from 10/18/2025 to 11/17/2025 were not provided for review. Review of the Daily Staffing Hours postings provided by the facility, from 10/18/2025 to 11/17/2025, showed changes for every day to columns titled Actual Number of staff, and/or Actual Total Hours daily.In an interview on 11/20/2025 at 8:44 AM with Staff F, Staffing Coordinator, and Staff B, Director of Nursing/Registered Nurse, Staff F said she did not update the staffing number and hours for each shift on the posted Daily Staffing Hours throughout the day when there were changes. Staff F said she took down the postings and updated them the next morning with staffing changes from the previous day.…

    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.

    Nursing and Physician Services Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
  • Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
  • State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to AVAMERE — 27 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 →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 5 of 53.0+2.0 vs chain
Health inspection 4 of 52.6+1.4 vs chain
Staffing 5 of 54.0+1.0 vs chain
Quality measures 4 of 53.8+0.2 vs chain
The other 26 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.0★, per CMS)
1 of 5Avamere Rehabilitation Of EugeneEugene, OR 1 of 5Avamere Rehabilitation Of LebanonLebanon, OR 2 of 5Avamere At Pacific RidgeTacoma, WA 2 of 5Avamere Health Services Of Rogue ValleyMedford, OR 2 of 5Avamere Olympic Rehabilitation Of SequimSequim, WA 2 of 5Avamere Rehabilitation At Park WestSeattle, WA 2 of 5Avamere Rehabilitation Of Coos BayCoos Bay, OR 2 of 5Avamere Rehabilitation Of IssaquahIssaquah, WA 2 of 5Avamere Rehabilitation Of Oregon CityOregon City, OR 2 of 5Avamere Rehabilitation Of ShorelineSeattle, WA 2 of 5Avamere Rehabilitation of BurienBurien, WA 2 of 5Avamere Riverpark Of EugeneEugene, OR 2 of 5Avamere Transitional Care At SunnysideSalem, OR 3 of 5Avamere Rehabilitation Of HillsboroHillsboro, OR 4 of 5Avamere Court At KeizerKeizer, OR 4 of 5Avamere Crestview Of PortlandPortland, OR 4 of 5Avamere Rehabilitation At RidgemontPort Orchard, WA 4 of 5Avamere Rehabilitation Of ClackamasGladstone, OR 4 of 5Avamere Rehabilitation Of Junction CityJunction City, OR 4 of 5Avamere Rehabilitation Of King CityTigard, OR 4 of 5Avamere Rehabilitation Of NewportNewport, OR 4 of 5Avamere Transitional Care Of Puget SoundTacoma, WA 4 of 5Richmond Beach RehabShoreline, WA 4 of 5The PEARL AT KRUSE WAYLake Oswego, OR 5 of 5Avamere At Three FountainsMedford, OR 5 of 5Queen Anne HealthcareSeattle, WA

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 / managerTypeRoleSince
MORRIS, CHRISTOPHERIndividualCONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEEsince 09/01/2016
ROSE, RYANIndividualW-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEEsince 08/22/2024
KOFSTAD, MARYIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 02/13/2024
SIMPSON, ANDREWIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 06/01/2024

The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.

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.

$16.1M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
+10.9%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$1.8M
Related-party expense12% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 40%Medicare 13%Other / private 46%

This home reported $1.8M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 12% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.

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

$499per resident / day
operating cost
$15,161per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$560per day
avg. revenue, all payers

Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.

What families pay in WA

Paying with Medicaid

This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Washington Medicaid page.

Typical monthly cost in Washington
$13,155/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$15,969/mo
Nursing home (private)
$7,600/mo
Assisted living

Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.

Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 505389. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-11-21, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →

Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →

Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.

What to do next