2625 Koos Bay Blvd, Coos Bay, OR 97420 · Coos County · (541) 267-2161
92 certified beds, about 55 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1994
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 385239 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on August 25, 2025, inspectors cited 17 health deficiencies (the Oregon average is 9.2, the national average 9.2).
Of 45 health citations since March 2023, 3 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (2 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $15,593 in the last three years; the largest was $15,593, and the latest is dated November 22, 2023.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 4.59 hours per resident per day, against 5.03 across Oregon and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.58 of those hours.
34.2% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Oregon average 47.4%).
CMS links it to Avamere, an affiliated group of 27 nursing homes.
Federal rules call for a standard inspection at least every 15 months, plus a visit whenever a complaint is filed. Each mark below is one citation, colored by how serious inspectors rated it. How to read a citation.
Under each citation, the quoted text is the inspector's own summary from the federal statement of deficiencies (CMS form 2567), word for word apart from a privacy scrub; CMS removes residents' and staff names before it publishes the text. The full notes are on Medicare.gov.
CMS rates every citation by how much harm it caused (rows) and how many residents it touched (columns). The count in each box is this home's, across all 45 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to have an on-hand supply of emergency hypoglycemic medication and administer anti-seizure medications according to provider orders for 2 of 13 residents (#s 5, and 30) reviewed for insulin and medication errors. This placed residents at risk for serious adverse health outcomes and death.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure physician orders were followed for 4 of 15 sampled residents (#s 3, 5, 21, and 59) reviewed for medications, insulin, medication administration, and tube feedings. This placed residents at risk for adverse medication effects.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined the facility failed to provide sufficient nursing staff to ensure residents attained or maintained their highest practicable mental, physical, and psychosocial well-being for 5 of 10 sampled residents (#s 1, 7, 24, 52, and 61) reviewed for staffing. This placed residents at risk for unmet needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure resident medications were not expired for 1 of 1 medication storage room, 1 of 2 medication carts, and 1 of 1 treatment carts reviewed for medication storage. This placed residents at risk for lack of medication efficacy and adverse reactions from expired medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview it was determined the facility failed to ensure an ice machine drain had an airgap to prevent back flow for 1 of 1 kitchen. This placed residents at risk for foodborne illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure a resident had correct sized incontinence products for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#3) reviewed for environment. This placed residents at risk for skin breakdown.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to notify a resident's family of a hospitalization for 1 of 2 sampled residents (#3) reviewed for hospitalization. This placed residents at risk for lack of family involvement.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to report a bruise of unknown origin for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#41) reviewed for abuse. This placed residents at risk for abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure therapy was ordered for a discharged resident for 1 of 2 sampled residents (#22) reviewed for discharge. This placed residents at risk for lack of timely services after discharge.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure the state Long Term Care Ombudsman's office was notified of facility discharges for 3 of 4 sampled residents (#s 3, 22, and 56) reviewed for discharges and hospitalization. This placed residents at risk for lack of advocacy.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure the resident's care plan was comprehensive for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#41) reviewed for abuse. This placed residents at risk for increased complications related to anticoagulant medication use.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure a resident's environment remained free from accident hazards for 1 of 9 sampled residents (#52) reviewed for staffing. This placed residents at risk for accidents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents received timely incontinence care for 2 of 10 residents (#6 and 15) reviewed for staffing. This placed residents at increased risk for skin breakdown and loss of dignity.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined the facility failed to provide respiratory care and services for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#6) reviewed for medications and respiratory services. This placed residents at risk for unmet respiratory needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure a resident's pain medication was available for 1 of 5 sampled residents (#3) reviewed for medications. This placed residents at risk for uncontrolled pain.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure a resident's denture was replaced timely for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#3) reviewed for dental. This placed residents at risk for weight loss.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview it was determined the facility failed to provide clean and sanitary smoking equipment for 1 of 4 sampled residents (#21) reviewed for smoking. This placed residents at risk for respiratory issues and cross-contamination.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to handle and prepare food in a sanitary manner for 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for sanitary practices. This placed residents at risk for food borne illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to process laundry to produce hygienically clean laundry and prevent the spread of infection for 1 of 1 laundry room reviewed for infection control. This placed residents at risk for contaminated laundry.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure proper labeling of biologicals, and failed to ensure proper storage temperatures were logged and maintained for 2 of 2 treatment carts and 1 of 1 medication room reviewed for medication storage. This placed residents at risk for reduced efficacy of medication and adverse medication side effects.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure resident rooms were cleaned for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#9) reviewed for environment. This placed residents at risk for lack of a homelike environment.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to protect residents' right to be free from verbal abuse from Staff 24 (RN) for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#20) reviewed for abuse. This placed residents at risk for abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were free from misappropriation by Staff 34 (CNA) for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#302) reviewed for misappropriation of personal funds. This placed residents at risk for financial abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents with contractures received ROM services and equipment to prevent further decrease in ROM and skin breakdown for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#4) reviewed for mobility. This placed residents at risk worsening contractures.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to assess falls and provide treatment to prevent falls for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#25) reviewed for accidents. This placed residents at risk for falls and injuries.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed ensure oxygen was administered as ordered and maintain oxygen concentrators for 2 of 3 sampled residents (#s 36 and 251) reviewed for oxygen therapy. This placed residents at risk for increased risk for respiratory failure.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to follow pharmacist recommendations in a timely manner for 1 of 5 sampled residents (#30) reviewed for unnecessary medications. This placed residents at risk for unnecessary medication administration.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to have a dialysis agreement in place for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#45) reviewed for dialysis. This placed residents at risk for not receiving dialysis services.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to accurately document medication administration for 1 of 4 sampled residents (#33) reviewed for physician orders. This placed residents at risk for inaccurate medical records.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were offered a pneumonia vaccine for 1 of 5 sampled residents (#30) reviewed for immunizations. This placed residents at risk for infections.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure Staff 3 (RN) and Staff 4 (LPN) adhered to professional standards of practice related to the provision of CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation) on a resident found with no heartbeat and not breathing for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#1) reviewed for Death/CPR. This failure, determined to be an immediate jeopardy situation, resulted from the failure to initiate CPR for the resident according to physician's orders. This failure prevented the possible resuscitation and continued life of Resident 1.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to perform CPR (Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation) on a resident found with no heartbeat and not breathing for 1 of 1 sampled residents (#1) reviewed for Death/CPR. This failure, determined to be an immediate jeopardy situation, resulted from the facility failing to initiate CPR for Resident 1 according to physician's orders. This failure prevented the possible resuscitation and continued life of Resident 1. Without immediate action to correct the failure the 19 other full code residents at the facility were at risk for not being resuscitated.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure comfortable temperatures were maintained in all areas of the facility for 1 of 1 facility. This placed residents at risk for an uncomfortable environment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it as determined the facility failed to follow physician orders and ensure bowel care interventions were followed for 3 of 5 sampled residents (#s 6, 16 and 24) reviewed for medications. This placed residents at risk for unmet needs and bowel complications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview it was determined the facility failed to ensure equipment was properly sanitized for 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed. This placed resident at risk for food borne illnesses. During random observations on 3/6/23 and 3/10/23 in the common dining room, plastic pitchers were observed in use by CNAs who assisted residents by pouring their beverages of choice during meal service. On 3/6/23 from 10:15 AM to 11:30 AM the three compartment sink was observed not in use. On 3/9/23 at 10:30 AM Staff 23 (Dietary Aide) stated the three compartment sink was only used when the dishwasher was not working. Staff 23 was observed to touch a plastic pitcher held in an unused three compartment sanitation sink and stated the plastic pitchers could not be placed in the dish machine because the dish washer damaged the pitchers. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure call lights were within reach for 2 of 2 sampled residents (#s 19 and 30) reviewed for call lights. This placed residents at risk for unmet needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to investigate an injury of unknown origin for 1 of 2 sampled residents (#47) reviewed for abuse. This placed residents at risk for abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to assess and complete a significant change assessment for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#13) reviewed for dialysis. This placed residents at risk for unmet needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to revise care plans and conduct quarterly care planning conferences for 3 of 5 sampled residents (#s 19, 23 and 24) reviewed for ADLs, constipation and care planning. This placed residents at risk for unmet needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure dialysis services were provided to 1 of 1 sampled resident (#16) reviewed for dialysis. This placed residents at risk for lack of dialysis services.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to reassess, implement and revise behavioral healthcare needs for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#12) reviewed for mood/behavior health. This placed residents at risk for unmet psychosocial wellbeing.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to monitor psychotropic medication for 1 of 5 sampled residents (#24) reviewed for medications. This place residents at risk for unnecessary medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to promptly provide emergency dental services and interventions to meet residents' needs for 1 of 2 sampled residents (#9) reviewed for dental. This placed residents at risk for unmet dental needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure meals were provided to meet the needs of residents for 3 of 4 sampled residents (#s 13, 20 and 22) reviewed for food and kitchen. This place residents at risk for lack of adequate nutrition and allergic reactions.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to accurately track and document the COVID-19 status of 1 of 8 sampled facility staff (#37) reviewed for vaccinations. This placed residents at risk for infection.
26 fire safety citations on file: 4 on May 3, 2024, 1 on March 10, 2023, 21 on January 27, 2022.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| November 22, 2023 | Fine | $15,593 |
A payment denial means Medicare and Medicaid stopped paying for new admissions for that period.
Hours of care per resident per day, from the payroll records every home sends CMS. Higher means more staff time with each resident.
| Measure | This home | Oregon | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 4.59 | 5.03 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.58 | 0.72 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 4.02 | 4.51 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 3.17 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.84 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 34.2% | 47.4% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 60.0% | 51.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.70 hours a day for residents as sick as this home's (its case-mix figure). The staffing star compares the two.
Every nursing home sends CMS its staff hours for each day (the Payroll Based Journal). Here they are added up by quarter. The latest quarter is the one behind the figures above. In January to March 2026, nursing staff hours per resident were 4.82 on weekdays and 4.02 on weekends, 17% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 1.5% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 4.42 in April to June 2025 to 4.59 in January to March 2026.
| Quarter | All nursing staff | Registered nurses | Weekdays | Weekends | Contract staff share | Days with no RN hours | Residents a day |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan to Mar 2026 | 4.59 | 0.58 | 4.82 | 4.02 | 1.5% | 0 of 90 | 55 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 4.60 | 0.36 | 4.84 | 4.01 | 0.6% | 0 of 92 | 53 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 4.54 | 0.52 | 4.83 | 3.82 | 2.5% | 1 of 92 | 49 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 4.42 | 0.60 | 4.69 | 3.74 | 1.4% | 0 of 91 | 50 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Oregon, Jan to Mar 2026 | 4.91 | 0.64 | 5.12 | 4.40 | 6.2% | 0.4% of days |
Hours per resident per day: staff hours in the quarter divided by resident days (the daily census CMS derives from resident assessments). Registered nurses include the director of nursing and RNs with administrative duties; aides include nurse aides in training and medication aides, as in CMS's own staffing measure. How these are calculated.
Staff pay reports
No staff pay figure for this home has passed review yet. A figure appears only after at least 5 reports from at least 3 different people, sent over at least 60 days, have passed review.
| Job | Median | Middle half | Employed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oregon, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $23.96 | $22.83 to $28.40 | 14,800 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $38.69 | $35.11 to $43.60 | 4,260 |
| Registered nurses | $62.02 | $51.55 to $64.63 | 39,730 |
| United States, nursing care facilities | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $20.67 | $17.91 to $22.55 | 534,270 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $33.86 | $30.05 to $37.40 | 188,210 |
| Registered nurses | $41.11 | $37.85 to $47.68 | 142,270 |
Hourly wages; the middle half runs from the 25th to the 75th percentile. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, May 2025. BLS has no separate estimate for medication aides. These are survey estimates for whole occupations, not figures for any one home.
The measures CMS uses for the quality star. Lower is better for every one of them.
| Measure | This home | Oregon | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 11.8 | 14.9 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 1.4 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.3 | 2.4 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 11.8 | 20.6 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.7 | 5.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 19.8 | 13.9 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 20.5 | 21.4 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 21.7 | 16.1 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.1 | 1.5 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.7 | 2.4 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Avamere Rehabilitation of Coos Bay's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it better than the national rate (62.5% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
62.5% this home
Better than the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · Oregon: 52 better, 3 worse
Rate of successful return to home or community from a SNF (risk-standardized discharge to community rate). Higher is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 160 eligible stays.
8.2% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Oregon: 3 better, 0 worse
Rate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 164 eligible stays.
6.9% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 7.1% · Oregon: 0 better, 0 worse
Percentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2023 to September 2024. 96 eligible stays.
46.7% this home
Median of homes: Oregon59.2% · US 56.6%
Percentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 75 residents counted.
0.0% this home
Median of homes: Oregon0.0% · US 0.0%
Percentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay. Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 114 residents counted.
3.7% this home
Median of homes: Oregon2.6% · US 1.7%
Percentage of residents with pressure ulcers or pressure injuries that are new or worsened (adjusted rate). Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 114 residents counted.
100.0% this home
Median of homes: Oregon98.5% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 55 residents counted.
Source: CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program - Provider Data, released 2026-09-30. Better, no different and worse are CMS's own comparisons with the national rate, after adjusting for how sick residents were. Medians of homes and the state counts are worked out by us from the same file.
Legal business name: COOS BAY REHABILITATION, LLC. CMS links this home to Avamere, a group of 27 nursing homes averaging 3 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ariso LLC | Direct ownership interest | Organization | 01/06/2006 | |
| Ari Operations, LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 01/06/2006 | |
| Avamere Group LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 01/06/2006 | |
| Midcap Finco LLC | 5% or greater security interest | Organization | 01/22/2010 | |
| Adams, Nancy | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 06/01/2025 | |
| Cavallo, Glen | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 06/01/2025 | |
| Feakin, Cody | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 06/01/2025 | |
| Funderberg, Michelle | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 06/01/2025 | |
| Hill, Kevin | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 06/01/2025 | |
| Hoskins, Tonia | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 06/01/2025 | |
| Inskeep, Todd | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 06/01/2025 | |
| Kofstad, Mary | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 06/01/2025 | |
| Munro, Jolynn | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 06/01/2025 | |
| Okoli, Ike | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 06/01/2025 | |
| Polson, Justin | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 06/01/2025 | |
| Powelson, Michele | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 06/01/2025 | |
| Reid, Misty | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 06/01/2025 | |
| Sanders, Amanda | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 06/01/2025 | |
| Simpson, Andrew | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 06/01/2025 | |
| Strunk, Colby | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 06/01/2025 | |
| Vanderzanden, Carrie | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 06/01/2025 | |
| Avamere Health Services LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 01/01/2005 | |
| Avamere Skilled Advisors LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 01/01/2005 | |
| Aronson, Jeffrey | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 08/12/2024 | |
| Carr, Kirsten | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/01/2022 | |
| Dana, Jennifer | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 05/01/2022 | |
| Feakin, Cody | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 07/15/2025 | |
| Henriquez, Nelson | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/01/2024 | |
| Hoskins, Tonia | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 07/19/2024 | |
| Kofstad, Mary | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/13/2024 | |
| Loewen, Michelle | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 10/09/2023 | |
| Munro, Jolynn | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 09/01/2023 | |
| Polson, Justin | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/10/2025 | |
| Powelson, Michele | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 03/25/2015 | |
| Presley, Yolanda | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/06/2025 | |
| Reid, Misty | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/02/2025 | |
| Rolison, Shirley | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 05/20/2018 | |
| Simpson, Andrew | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 06/01/2024 | |
| Avamere Health Services LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 07/07/2025 | |
| Avamere Skilled Advisors LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 07/13/2025 | |
| Karl Rickard Miller Jr Revocable Trust | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 08/04/2025 | |
| Adams, Nancy | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/31/2024 | |
| Aronson, Jeffrey | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 07/07/2025 | |
| Carr, Kirsten | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/01/2022 | |
| Dana, Jennifer | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 05/01/2022 | |
| Feakin, Cody | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/01/2025 | |
| Funderberg, Michelle | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/31/2024 | |
| Henriquez, Nelson | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/01/2024 | |
| Hill, Kevin | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 03/12/2022 | |
| Inskeep, Todd | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/21/2022 | |
| Kofstad, Mary | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/13/2024 | |
| Loewen, Michelle | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 10/09/2023 | |
| Munro, Jolynn | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 09/01/2023 | |
| Polson, Justin | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/10/2025 | |
| Powelson, Michele | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 03/25/2015 | |
| Presley, Yolanda | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/06/2025 | |
| Reid, Misty | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/02/2025 | |
| Rolison, Shirley | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 05/20/2018 | |
| Simpson, Andrew | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/01/2024 | |
| Strunk, Colby | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 09/06/2022 | |
| Vanderzanden, Carrie | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/01/2025 |
As listed in the CMS ownership file, which names owners with a 5% or greater stake and the people and companies with operational or managerial control.
Chosen from this home's own inspection record.
These are the official offices in Oregon. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.