2901 E. Barnett Road, Medford, OR 97504 · Jackson County · (541) 779-4221
87 certified beds, about 81 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1974
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 385091 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on May 23, 2025, inspectors cited 5 health deficiencies (the Oregon average is 9.2, the national average 9.2).
Of 75 health citations since October 2023, 6 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (4 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 3 fines totaling $230,522 in the last three years; the largest was $88,282, and the latest is dated May 31, 2024.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 4.41 hours per resident per day, against 5.03 across Oregon and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.67 of those hours.
37.1% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Oregon average 47.4%).
CMS links it to Volare Health, an affiliated group of 16 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 75 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were free from misappropriation of money for 1 of 4 sampled residents (#18) reviewed for abuse and misappropriation. This placed residents at risk for loss of property.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents received required admissions documents at or before admission for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#9) reviewed for resident rights. This placed residents at risk for not understanding their rights and services.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure dependent residents received required assistance with ADLs for 3 of 5 sampled residents (#s 3, 6, and 13) reviewed for ADLs and call lights. This placed resident at risk for unmet needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to follow physician orders for 1 of 4 sampled residents (#19) reviewed for medications. This placed residents at risk for delayed treatment and unmet medication needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure resident records were complete and accurate for 3 of 14 sampled residents (#s 1, 4, and 12) reviewed for medical records. This placed residents at risk for inaccurate medical records.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to revise care plan interventions and re-evaluate a resident's elopement to ensure a resident's safety for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#1) reviewed for elopement. This placed residents at risk for repeated elopements.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to protect the resident's right to be free from abuse for 2 of 2 sampled residents (#s 32 & 208) reviewed for abuse. This placed residents at risk for mental anguish and abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure alleged violations involving sexual abuse were reported immediately, but no later than two hours after the allegation is made for 2 of 2 sampled residents (#s 32 and 208) reviewed for abuse. This placed residents at risk for abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to develop a comprehensive assessment for 1 of 3 residents (#31) reviewed for tube feeding. This placed residents at risk for unmet nutritional needs and weight loss. Resident 31 was admitted to the facility in 4/2025 with diagnoses including a feeding tube. The 5/3/25 admission Nutritional Status CAA indicated Resident 31 had nutritional problems or potential problem related to acute kidney failure, UTI, diabetes, severe septic shock, high blood pressure and Enteral feeding. (tube feeding.) The admission Nutritional CAA did not include Resident 31's eating pattern, communication problems, resident or family input, or care plan considerations. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure dialysis (a procedure which removes waste products and excess fluid from the blood when the kidneys are no longer functioning properly) services were completed, including monitoring and communication with the dialysis provider for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#44) reviewed for dialysis. This placed residents at risk for delayed treatment and medical complications related to dialysis.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to follow up on dental services for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#6) reviewed for dental services. This placed residents at risk for unmet dental health needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview it was determined the facility failed to properly dispose of expired medications for 1 of 1 medical storage room, 2 of 3 medication carts, and 2 of 3 resident medication storage refrigerators reviewed for medication storage. This placed residents at risk for lack of medication efficacy and adverse reactions from expired medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to update a resident's POLST (physician orders for life sustaining treatment; end of life choices) for 1 of 4 sampled residents (#36) reviewed for ADLs. This placed residents at risk for end-of-life choices not being honored.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure transfer notices with appeal rights were provided in writing to residents and their representatives, and to ensure the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman was notified of resident hospitalizations for 2 of 2 sampled resident (#s 4 and 36) reviewed for hospitalizations. This placed residents at risk of lack of access to an advocate to inform them of their options and rights, and a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide information regarding the facility's bed hold policy for 2 of 2 sampled residents (#s 4 and 36) reviewed for hospitalization. This placed residents at risk for lack of knowledge regarding the right to return to the same bed within the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to assist residents with hygiene for 2 of 4 sampled residents (#s 8 and 36) reviewed for ADLs. This placed residents at risk for lack of dignity.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to follow physician's orders and provide care and services to maintain the highest practicable level of well-being for 1 of 7 sampled residents (# 36) reviewed for hospitalization.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure falls were evaluated timely and care plan interventions were updated, appropriate and followed for 2 of 2 sampled resident (#s 12 and 32) reviewed for accidents. This placed residents at risk for accidents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents received accurate provision of prescribed medications for 3 of 6 sampled residents (#s 2, 4 and 13) reviewed for medications and hospitalizations. This placed residents at risk for not receiving medications as prescribed.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to address pharmacy recommendations for 1 of 5 sampled residents (#13) reviewed for medications. This placed residents at risk for adverse medication reactions.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to conduct a resident's psychotropic GDRs (Gradual Dose Reduction) for 1 of 5 sampled residents (#17) reviewed for medications. This placed residents at risk for receiving unnecessary psychotropic medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility misappropriated narcotic medication for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#3) reviewed for abuse. This placed residents at risk for increased pain.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure adequate sanitation for 1 of 1 facility kitchen. This placed residents at risk for food-borne illnesses.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review it was determine that facility failed to provide appropriate silverware for 1 of 1 dining room and 1 of 1 random resident (#4) reviewed for dining. This placed residents at risk for lack of a dignified dining experience.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure the environment was free of loud noises for 1 of 2 halls reviewed. This placed residents at risk for an uncomfortable environment.
Inspectors wrote3. Resident 3 admitted to the facility in 2023 with a diagnosis of a stroke. Resident 3's clinical record revealed a MDS assessment was completed on 3/30/24. Record review revealed no evidence a care conference was conducted after the 3/30/24 MDS assessment. On 6/25/24 at 12:29 PM Staff 15 (Social Services) acknowledged Resident 3 did not have a care conference after her/his most recent MDS assessment. 4. Resident 24 admitted to the facility in 2024 with a diagnosis of Parkinson's disease. Resident 24's clinical record revealed a significant change MDS was completed on 3/26/24, and indicated Resident 24 was cognitively intact. On 6/24/24 at 9:32 AM Resident 24 stated she/he did not participate in a care conference for a long time. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure narcotics were disposed timely for 3 of 4 medication carts (Wing 1, Wing 2, and Wing 3) reviewed for medication storage.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to follow infection control standards for 1 of 5 sampled residents (#204) reviewed for medications and 1 of 1 dining room during random observations. This placed residents at risk for exposure and contraction of infectious diseases.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure a resident or resident's responsible part was involved with decisions related to care for 2 of 6 sampled residents (#s 21 and 31) reviewed for medications and restraints. This placed residents at risk for lack of health care choices.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure a resident was assessed to self-administer medications for 1 of 4 sampled residents (#6) reviewed for accidents. This placed residents at risk for unnecessary medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents' advance directives were in the clinical record and residents were provided advance directive information for 2 of 8 sampled residents (#s 3 and 24 ) reviewed for advance directives. This placed residents at risk for end of life choices not being honored.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure a NOMNC (Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage) was provided to 1 of 3 sampled residents (#19) reviewed for beneficiary notices. This placed residents at risk for being uninformed regarding their appeal rights.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to complete a thorough investigation for falls for 1 of 5 sampled residents (#27) reviewed for medications. This placed residents at risk for accidents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure oxygen was in place as ordered for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#12) reviewed for respiratory care. This placed residents at risk for impaired respiratory status.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure CNA staff annual performance reviews were completed for 3 of 5 sampled CNA staff (#s 4, 5, and 6) reviewed for staffing. This placed residents at risk for a lack of competent staff.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to monitor anticoagulants for 1 of 5 sampled resident (#20) reviewed for pain and ensure insulin was held for 1 of 5 sampled resident (# 31) reviewed for medications. This placed residents at risk for adverse side effects of medications and low blood sugar levels.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to consistently monitor residents on psychotropic medications for 3 of 5 sampled residents (#s 20, 27 and 38) reviewed for psychotropic medications. This placed residents at risk for receiving unnecessary psychotropic medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure a resident understood an arbitration agreement for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#38) reviewed for arbitration. This placed residents at risk for loss of legal rights.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to have a system in place to ensure CNA staff received 12 hours of in-service training annually for 3 of 5 randomly selected staff members (#s 4, 6 and 8) reviewed for evidence of in-service training. This placed residents at risk for lack of competent staff.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were free from sexual abuse for 2 of 5 sampled residents (#s 15 and 16) reviewed for abuse. This failure, determined to be an immediate jeopardy situation, placed residents at risk for sexual abuse when staff witnessed repeated intimate nonconsensual sexual activity without completing assessments to determine ability to consent and without putting appropriate interventions in place.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility administration failed to implement their abuse policy procedures in the areas of identification, investigation, protection, and reporting which resulted in repeated incidents of sexual abuse for 2 of 5 sampled residents (#s 15 and 16) reviewed for abuse. This failure to implement their abuse policy and procedures resulted in Resident 15 and Resident 16 repeatedly engaging in intimate nonconsensual sexual activity. The facility's 3/2023 Freedom from Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation policy including the Abuse Reporting and Responsibilities of Covered Individuals indicated the following: - The facility will provide a safe resident environment and protect residents from abuse . this includes freedom from . sexual or physical abuse. - Report allegation to appropriate authorities within required timeframes and conduct a thorough investigation. [...]
Inspectors wrote1. Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to obtain treatment orders, failed to administer timely treatment, and failed to provided correct treatment for a surgical wound for 1 of 7 sampled residents (#6) reviewed for wounds. This failure, determined to be an immediate jeopardy situation, resulted in Resident 6 experiencing a delay in wound care treatment which resulted in the resident's wound to become infected and dehisced (separation of the wound due to improper healing). Resident 6 was re-hospitalized and required surgery for an above the knee amputation (AKA).
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to comprehensively assess, monitor, treat and follow physician orders for pressure ulcer treatment for 1 of 7 sampled residents (#4) reviewed for pressure ulcers. This failure, determined to be an immediate jeopardy situation, resulted in Resident 4's Stage 2 (partial thickness skin loss) pressure ulcer observed upon admission which worsened to an infected, unstageable (full thickness tissue loss where the depth of the wound is obscured by non-viable or dead tissue) pressure ulcer. Resident 4 was admitted to the hospital where she/he required surgical debridement (the removal of damaged tissue from the wound).
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure there was sufficient nursing staff available to provide the necessary care and services to meet residents' needs in 1 of 1 facility and for 4 of 4 sampled residents (#s 11, 22, 23 and 24) reviewed for staffing. This placed residents at risk for unmet care needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure the facility had nursing staff with the appropriate wound care competencies and skills sets for 12 of 12 licensed nurse staff reviewed for nursing services. This placed residents at risk for unmet wound care needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure effective systems were in place to identify problems, and take action to improve and monitor its performance for 1 of 1 facility reviewed for quality assessment and assurance. This failure placed residents at risk for worsening care.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were treated with respect and dignity for 1 of 3 residents (#22) reviewed for dignity. This placed residents at risk for being treated in an undignified manner.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were free from verbal and physical abuse for 2 of 6 sampled residents (#s 13 and 17) reviewed for abuse. Resident 13 experienced psychosocial harm.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure a RN served as the DNS on a full-time basis for 1 of 1 facility reviewed for DNS staffing. This placed residents at risk for lack of nursing department oversight.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure there was sufficient nursing staff available to provide care and services to meeting the residents needs for 4 of 4 wings (Wings 1,2,3 and 4) reviewed for staffing. This placed residents at risk for unmet care needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview it was determined the facility failed to ensure medications were properly secured and only accessible to authorized personnel for 3 of 3 random observations reviewed for medication storage. This placed residents at risk for access to potentially harmful medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to complete and implement baseline care plans to ensure resident safety for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#25) reviewed for behaviors. This placed residents at risk for unaddressed needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure a resident who was a trauma survivor received trauma-informed care for 1 of 6 sampled residents (#13) reviewed for abuse. This placed residents at risk for unmet trauma needs and a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview it was determined the facility failed to maintain an infection control program and provide a sanitary and comfortable environment for 1 of 1 random observation (room [ROOM NUMBER]) reviewed for infection control. This placed residents at risk for an unsanitary, non-homelike environment.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure care plans were developed for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#7) reviewed for pressure ulcers. This placed residents at risk for worsening wounds.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure care plans were revised for 2 of 4 sampled residents (#s 5 and 6) reviewed for adaptive equipment and medical devices. This placed residents at risk for lack of resident specific care.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure provision of ADL care for 2 of 6 sampled residents (#s 1 and 8) reviewed for eating and bathing assistance. This placed residents at risk for aspiration and poor hygiene.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide bowel care for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#1) reviewed for bowel care, failed to monitor residents after a fall for 2 of 3 sampled residents (#s 6 and 9) reviewed for accidents, failed to provide a resident a compression boot for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#1) reviewed for medical equipment and failed to assist a resident with glasses for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#6) reviewed for glasses. This placed residents at risk for unidentified injuries and untreated medical conditions.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure a resident's visitor was monitored to ensure safety for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#7) reviewed for supervision. This placed residents at risk for adverse medical events.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure a UA was obtained and results reported timely for 1 of 2 sampled residents (#1) reviewed for UTI. This placed residents at risk for untreated infections.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide assistive devices for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#5) reviewed for care plans. This placed residents at risk for unmet needs.
Inspectors wrote2. Resident 144 was admitted to the facility in 2023 with diagnoses including cancer and chronic pain. An 10/25/23 admission Evaluation indicated Resident 144 was alert to person, place, time, and situation. An 10/27/23 Pain Evaluation indicated resident 144 could not verbalize pain. On 10/30/23 at 3:15 PM Witness 9 (Family Member) stated Resident 144 did not receive pain medication besides Tylenol since admission, which did not work for cancer pain. Witness 9 stated nursing was notified multiple times. Resident 144 was painful and in tears but the staff did not notify the physician for stronger pain medication. Witness 9 stated the resident was on hydrocodone (pain medication) in the hospital and it worked for her/his pain. On 10/31/23 at 4:43 PM Resident 144 was observed lying in bed grimacing. A physician order dated 10/31/23 included oxycodone (pain medication) as needed. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure ADL assistance was provided for 7 of 7 sampled residents (#s 6, 7, 58, 63, 133, 144, and 222) reviewed for ADLs. This placed residents at risk for poor hygiene.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to follow physician orders, provide resident positioning, and identify change of condition timely for 4 of 11 sampled residents (#s 9, 46, 58, and 73) reviewed for medications, change of condition, dialysis, and pain. This placed residents at risk for unmet needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide sufficient staffing to meet the needs of residents in a timely manner for 3 of 24 sampled residents (#s 5, 72, and 73) and 4 of 4 wings (wings 1, 2, 3, and 4) reviewed for staffing and ADLs. This placed residents at risk for unmet needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to staff a registered nurse for 8 consecutive hours per day 7 days per week for 2 out of 63 days reviewed for staffing. This placed residents at risk for unmet assessment needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide risk and benefits for the use of antipsychotic medications to a resident/responsible party prior to administration for 1 of 6 sampled resident (#73) reviewed for medications. This placed residents and responsible parties at risk for lack of informed consent.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to assess a resident for a seatbelt for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#58) reviewed for dialysis (the perification of blood through a machine). This placed residents at risk for being restrained.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to prevent and investigate pressure ulcers for 1 of 4 sampled residents (#73) reviewed for pressure ulcers. This placed residents at risk for pressure ulcers.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure a resident was provided toileting assistance for 1 of 5 sampled residents (#72) reviewed for bowel and bladder. This placed residents at risk for UTIs and lack of dignity.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure respiratory equipment filters were clean for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#8) reviewed for environment. This placed residents at risk for impaired respiratory health.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents records were complete and accurate for 2 of 3 sampled residents (#s 7 and 73) reviewed for nutrition and change of condition. This placed residents at risk for weight loss and abnormal lab values.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to complete a comprehensive assessment within 14 days of admission for 5 of 6 sampled residents (#s 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6) reviewed for comprehensive assessments. This placed residents at risk for unmet needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to complete an investigation to rule out neglect within five working days for 1 of 2 sampled residents (#1) reviewed for elopement. This placed residents at risk for accidents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to update the care plan after an elopement for 1 of 2 sampled residents (#1) reviewed for elopement.
4 fire safety citations on file: 2 on May 23, 2025, 2 on June 28, 2024.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| May 31, 2024 | Fine | $88,282 |
| May 31, 2024 | Payment Denial | 48 days from June 30, 2024 |
| February 1, 2024 | Fine | $82,274 |
| February 1, 2024 | Payment Denial | 7 days from May 1, 2024 |
| October 23, 2023 | Fine | $59,966 |
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) | 4.41 | 5.03 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.67 | 0.72 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.77 | 4.51 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 3.07 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.66 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 37.1% | 47.4% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 57.1% | 51.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 2 |
CMS expects 3.51 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 4.67 on weekdays and 3.77 on weekends, 19% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.1% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 5.04 in April to June 2025 to 4.41 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 | 4.41 | 0.67 | 4.67 | 3.77 | 0.1% | 0 of 90 | 81 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 4.41 | 0.66 | 4.66 | 3.76 | 2.7% | 0 of 92 | 75 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 4.66 | 0.77 | 4.89 | 4.10 | 5.2% | 0 of 92 | 62 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 5.04 | 0.68 | 5.34 | 4.28 | 4.1% | 0 of 91 | 56 |
| 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. If you work here, your report helps start one.
| 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 | 22.6 | 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 | 0.0 | 2.4 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.1 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 47.4 | 20.6 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.1 | 5.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.6 | 13.9 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 23.1 | 21.4 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 15.1 | 16.1 | 12.0 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Hearthstone Nursing & Rehabilitation Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it better than the national rate (57.5% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
57.5% 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. 235 eligible stays.
9.8% 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. 198 eligible stays.
6.0% 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. 106 eligible stays.
47.3% 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. 74 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. 105 residents counted.
0.9% 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. 105 residents counted.
92.7% 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. 68 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: MEDFORD NURSING & REHAB CENTER LLC. CMS links this home to Volare Health, a group of 16 nursing homes averaging 1.8 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pac 12 Opco Holdco LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 03/01/2023 |
| Knox Healthcare Pac 12 Holdings LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 03/01/2023 | |
| Pac 12 Holdings LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 03/01/2023 | |
| Pac 12 Pinnacle Holdco LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 03/01/2023 | |
| Hagler, Alexander | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 03/01/2023 | |
| Knox, Donald | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 03/01/2023 | |
| Medford Propco LLC | 5% or greater mortgage interest | Organization | 03/01/2023 | |
| Knox, Donald | Corporate officer | Individual | 03/01/2023 | |
| Smith, Brian | Corporate officer | Individual | 03/27/2023 | |
| Volare Health LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 03/01/2023 | |
| Kahn, Karen | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 07/03/2023 | |
| Knox, Donald | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 03/01/2023 | |
| Moore, James | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 09/03/2024 | |
| Schwartz, Eliezer | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 03/01/2023 | |
| Medford Propco LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 03/01/2023 | |
| Pac 12 Holdings LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 03/01/2023 | |
| Pac 12 Pinnacle Holdco LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 03/01/2023 | |
| Volare Health LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 08/20/2025 | |
| Hagar, Chaim | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 03/01/2023 | |
| Kahn, Karen | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 07/03/2023 | |
| Knox, Donald | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 03/01/2023 | |
| Moore, James | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 09/03/2024 | |
| Schwartz, Eliezer | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 03/01/2023 | |
| Smith, Brian | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 03/27/2023 |
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.