2201 Nw Highland Avenue, Grants Pass, OR 97526 · Josephine County · (541) 474-1901
119 certified beds, about 96 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1981
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 385149 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on December 3, 2025, inspectors cited 14 health deficiencies (the Oregon average is 9.2, the national average 9.2).
Of 70 health citations since March 2023, 1 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $36,852 in the last three years; the largest was $36,852, and the latest is dated October 8, 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 0.20 of those hours.
45.5% 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 70 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to follow physician orders and provide necessary treatment related to bowel care for 2 of 3 sampled residents (#s 12 and 18) reviewed for change of condition. This placed residents at risk for dehydration, incontinence and weight loss.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview it was determined the facility failed to keep air temperatures between 71 and 81 degrees Fahrenheit for 2 of 4 halls reviewed for environment. This placed residents at risk for lack of a homelike environment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure community use CBG monitors were cleaned with an Environmental Protection Agency approved disinfectant for 2 of 5 Halls (300 Hall and 400 Hall). This placed residents at risk for cross contamination.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure a resident's advance directive was in her/his clinical record for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#3) reviewed for advance directives. This placed residents at risk for end-of-life decisions not being honored.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure a resident's antipsychotic medication was not increased when adverse side effects were present for 1 of 4 sampled residents (# 92) reviewed for nutrition. This placed residents at risk for irreversible involuntary movements.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure a resident's pressure ulcers were thoroughly investigated for 1 of 1 sampled resident (# 40) reviewed for hospice. This placed residents at risk for additional pressure ulcers.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview it was determined the facility failed to ensure the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman was notified of a resident's discharge or hospitalization for 3 of 3 sampled residents (#s 11, 98, and 100) reviewed for discharge and hospitalization. This placed residents at risk for lack of knowledge regarding their rights, choices and potential financial responsibilities.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed develop a comprehensive care plan for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#9) reviewed for dialysis. This placed residents at risk for unmet dialysis needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to revise care plan interventions for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#22) reviewed for position and mobility. This placed residents at risk for unmet needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure a resident did not develop a pressure ulcer, failed to identify a pressure ulcer, and provide physician ordered treatments for 2 of 3 sampled residents (#s 3 and 76) reviewed for pressure ulcers. This placed residents at risk for delayed care and worsening pressure ulcers.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents did not have cigarettes and lighters in their rooms and a fall investigation was thoroughly completed for 3 of 10 sampled residents (#1, 11, and 110) reviewed for accidents. This placed residents at risk for accidents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined that the facility failed to implement nutritional interventions to prevent weight loss for 1 of 4 sampled residents (#40) reviewed for nutrition. This placed residents at risk for continued weight loss.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide sufficient respiratory services for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#11) reviewed for respiratory care. This placed residents at risk for unmet respiratory needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure behavior health services were provided for 3 of 5 sampled residents (#s 9, 19, and 36) reviewed for behavioral-emotional health and hospice. This placed residents at risk for unresolved emotional needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure a resident received thickened liquids as ordered for 1 of 4 sampled residents (#40) reviewed for nutrition. This placed residents at risk for aspiration.
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 6 sampled residents (#12) reviewed for abuse. This placed residents at risk for being treated with a lack of respect and dignity.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to accurately assess facility acquired pressure ulcers for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#11) reviewed for skin conditions. This placed residents at risk for unassessed and worsening pressure ulcers.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to evaluate a potential unavoidable accident of a feeding tube being dislodged to prevent recurrence for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#11) reviewed for safety. This placed residents at risk for dislodged feeding tubes.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were free from significant medication errors for 1 of 4 sampled residents (#13) reviewed for medications. This placed residents at risk for respiratory distress.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were free from sexual abuse for 2 of 3 sampled residents (#s 2 and 3) reviewed for abuse. This placed residents at risk for unwanted sexual abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined a facility employee sexually abused 6 of 10 sampled residents (#s 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11) who were reviewed for sexual abuse. As a result of the pattern of sexual abuse, it was determined to be an immediate jeopardy situation and residents experienced psychosocial harm.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were treated with dignity and respect for 4 of 15 sampled residents (Witness 2 and Resident #s 51, 65, and 95) reviewed for dignity and abuse. This placed residents at risk for depression.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview it was determined the facility failed to ensure a resident's wheelchair, residents' walls and floors were in good repair and failed to provide comfortable sound levels for 5 of 13 sampled residents (#s 20, 29, 51, 90, and 137) reviewed for environment. This placed residents at risk for skin tears and unhomelike conditions.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide a written grievance resolution or communicate with a resident or resident's representative regarding the resolution of a resident grievance for 6 of 14 sampled residents (#s 8, 83, 84, 86, 87, and 90) reviewed for abuse and dignity. This placed residents at risk for unaddressed concerns and grievances.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to revise and update a care plan intervention for 6 of 11 sampled residents (#s 16, 19, 21, 25, 49 and 51) reviewed for medications care planning, dental and respiratory. This placed residents at risk for unmet of care needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to follow physician orders and monitor for 5 of 14 sampled residents (#s 16, 33, 51, 133, and 134) reviewed for medications, antibiotics, dialysis, and edema. This placed residents at risk for adverse side effects and constipation.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined the facility failed to post accurate and complete staffing information for 1 of 1 facility reviewed for staffing. This placed residents at risk for incomplete and inaccurate staffing information.
Inspectors wrote3. Resident 51 was admitted to the facility in 2023 with a diagnosis of Cancer. A 4/30/24 Pharmacy report recommended Resident 51's ferrous sulfate (supplement) should be discontinued because the resident's iron level was normal and docusate (treats constipation) because it was not an effective medication. A 6/2024 MAR revealed Resident 51 continued to be administered ferrous sulfate and docusate. On 6/11/24 at 2:33 PM a request was made to Staff 2 (DNS) to provide documentation Resident 51's physician declined 4/31/24 pharmacy recommendations. No additional information was provided. Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to follow pharmacy recommendations for 4 of 6 sampled residents (#s 16, 33, 63, and 51) reviewed for medications. This placed residents at risk for adverse medication side effects.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was it was determined the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate of less than 5%. The facility administration rate was 7.41% with two errors in 27 opportunities. This placed residents at risk for ineffective medication regimen.
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 3, 5, and 6) reviewed 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 inform residents and/or resident's responsible party of the risk and benefits for the use of an antipsychotic medication and the risk and benefits of not following a prescribed diet for 3 of 6 sampled residents (#s 16, 33, and 335) reviewed for medications and diet. This placed residents' and resident responsible parties at risk for lack of informed consent and decision making.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to notify a resident's representative of a fall for 1 of 2 sampled residents (#89) reviewed for falls. This placed resident representatives at risk for being uninformed of resident accidents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview it was determined the facility failed to maintain privacy and confidentiality of resident records in 1 of 1 Social Services office. This placed residents at risk for lack of privacy and confidentiality.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to assess the use of a physical restraint for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#57) reviewed for restraints. This placed residents at risk for potential abuse or neglect.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined the facility failed to report a resident to resident altercation for 2 of 11 sampled residents (#s 20 and 91 ) reviewed for abuse. This placed residents at risk for ongoing abuse. 1. Resident 20 was admitted to the facility in 2020 with a diagnosis of heart disease. A 12/16/23 Annual MDS revealed Resident 20 was cognitively impaired. Resident 20's Care Plan initiated 12/10/21 revealed Resident 20 propelled in a wheelchair. Review of Resident 20's clinical record revealed there were no resident to resident altercations identified in 11/2023. Resident 30 was admitted to the facility in 2020 with a diagnosis of seizures. Resident 30's Care Plan initiated in 2020 revealed Resident 30 was physically aggressive towards others due to a head injury. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to investigate for abuse for 1 of 6 sampled residents (#65) reviewed for dignity and respect. This placed residents at risk for abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to comprehensively assess residents related to behaviors for 1 of 2 sampled residents (#25) reviewed for behavioral health assessments. This placed residents at risk for unassessed behavioral emotional healthcare needs and services.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to document and conduct a Significant Change MDS assessment within the required timeframe for 1 of 2 sampled residents (#57) reviewed for change of condition. This placed residents at risk for unassessed needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were referred to the appropriate state-designated authority for a Level II PASARR (Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review) evaluation (evaluation for individuals with a mental disorder or intellectual disability) for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#25) reviewed for PASARR's. This placed residents at risk for not receiving specialized mental health services.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure a baseline care plan was developed for 2 of 12 sampled resident (#s 134 and 335) reviewed for dialysis, accidents, and medications. This placed residents at risk for unmet care needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility staff failed to follow professional standards of practice for a diagnosed mental disorder for 1 of 6 (#16) sampled residents reviewed for medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure a resident had glasses for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#20) reviewed for communication-sensory. This placed residents at risk for unmet vision needs.
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 3 of 6 sampled residents (#51, 57 and 63) 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 nutritional supplements were provided for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#19) reviewed for nutrition. This placed residents at risk for weight loss.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined the facility failed to obtain orders for oxygen and clean a resident's oxygen equipment for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#51) reviewed for respiratory care. This placed residents at risk for unsanitary conditions and lack of monitoring.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure pain medications were available for 2 of 3 sampled residents (#85, and 339) reviewed for pain. This placed residents at risk for increased pain.
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 in accordance with professional standards of practice and account for the residents' experiences and preferences in order to eliminate or mitigate triggers that may cause re-traumatization for 1 of 2 sampled residents (#25) reviewed for Behavioral-Emotional. This placed residents at risk for re-traumatization and a decrease in their quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure a resident was transported to dialysis for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#134) reviewed for dialysis. This placed residents at risk for worsening kidney function.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to follow infection control standards for 1 of 5 halls (200 hall) reviewed for infection control. This placed residents at risk for cross contamination.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure a resident was not administered an antibiotic without indication for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#86) reviewed for UTI. This placed residents at risk for drug resistant infections.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to obtain copies and provide assistance to residents who expressed interest in formulating an advance directive for 3 of 7 sampled residents (#s 6, 18, and 32) reviewed for advance directives. This placed residents at risk for not having their healthcare decisions honored.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview it was determined the facility failed to provide a homelike environment for 3 of 5 halls (200, 300 and 400 hall) reviewed for environment. This placed residents at risk for living in an unhomelike environment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure physician orders and bowel protocols were followed for 4 of 16 sampled residents (#s 15, 34 and 166) reviewed for medications, ADLs and respiratory care. This placed residents at risk for adverse health consequences.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure sufficient staffing to meet resident care needs for 4 of 5 halls (100, 200, 300 and 400) reviewed for staffing. This placed residents at risk for delayed and unmet care needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure CNA staff annual performance reviews were completed for 4 of 4 sampled CNA staff (#s 7, 8, 9 and 10) 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 ensure the Direct Care Staff Daily Reports were complete for 10 of 33 days reviewed for staffing. This placed residents at risk for incorrect staffing information.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 1 of 1 kitchen refrigerator reviewed for sanitary food storage. This placed residents at risk for exposure to harmful bacteria, reduced nutritive value and stale food products.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were assessed for safe self-administration of medications for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#34) reviewed for self-administration of medications. This placed residents at risk for adverse medication side effects.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to protect the resident's right to be free from sexual abuse by Witness 3 (Alledged Perpetrator/Medical Transportation Driver) for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#54) reviewed for abuse. This placed residents at risk for abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to complete a thorough investigation of an allegation of abuse for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#54) reviewed for abuse. This placed residents at risk for abuse and inaccurate investigations.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review was determined the facility failed to ensure assessments accurately reflected the residents' status for 1 of 9 sampled residents (#30) reviewed for ADLs. This placed residents at risk for inaccurate assessments.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure Staff 11 (Former Staff/RN) adhered to professional standards for medication administration. This placed residents at risk for adverse side effects of medication and hospitalization.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide bathing assistance to dependent residents for 2 of 7 sampled residents (#s 4 and 18) reviewed for ADLs. This placed residents at risk for lack of hygiene.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide routine diabetic foot care for 2 of 2 sampled residents (#s 10 and 34) reviewed for foot care. This placed residents at risk for pain.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure respiratory equipment was properly maintained for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#30) reviewed for respiratory care. This placed residents at risk for discomfort.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents received dialysis services consistent with the care plan for 1 of 1 sampled residents (#18) reviewed for dialysis. This placed residents at risk for potential complications in dialysis care and treatment.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to identify potential trauma and monitor psychosocial distress for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#54) reviewed for abuse. This placed residents at risk for unmet psychosocial needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were free from significant medication errors for 1 of 8 sampled residents (#167) reviewed for medication. This placed residents at risk for adverse side effects of medication and hospitalization.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview it was determined the facility failed to store treatment supplies in locked compartments for 1 of 1 treatment cart on 500 hall observed. This placed residents at risk for accidents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview it was determined the facility failed to ensure staff wore and used PPE correctly for 1 of 1 COVID unit reviewed for infection control. This placed residents and staff at risk for respiratory illnesses and infections.
20 fire safety citations on file: 2 on December 3, 2025, 8 on October 8, 2024, 4 on June 14, 2024, 6 on March 10, 2023.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| October 8, 2024 | Fine | $36,852 |
| June 14, 2024 | Payment Denial | 6 days from September 14, 2024 |
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 | 0.20 | 0.72 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.98 | 4.51 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 3.14 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.07 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 45.5% | 47.4% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 66.7% | 51.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 2 |
CMS expects 3.79 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 4.58 on weekdays and 3.98 on weekends, 13% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.0% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 4.43 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 | 0.20 | 4.58 | 3.98 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 96 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 4.88 | 0.30 | 5.14 | 4.19 | 3.7% | 0 of 92 | 92 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 4.40 | 0.34 | 4.67 | 3.71 | 10.0% | 1 of 92 | 94 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 4.43 | 0.34 | 4.63 | 3.92 | 12.0% | 0 of 91 | 88 |
| 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 | 12.2 | 14.9 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.7 | 1.4 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.1 | 2.0 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.7 | 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 | 21.5 | 20.6 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.5 | 5.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 22.0 | 13.9 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 24.4 | 21.4 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 21.1 | 16.1 | 12.0 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Highland House Nursing & Rehabilitation Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it better than the national rate (63.6% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
63.6% 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. 177 eligible stays.
10.6% 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. 154 eligible stays.
6.4% 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.
61.0% 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. 77 residents counted.
0.9% 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. 111 residents counted.
2.5% 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. 111 residents counted.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
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. 13 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: GRANTS PASS 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 | |
| Grants Pass 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 | |
| Cossell, Patrick | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/07/2025 | |
| Kahn, Karen | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 07/03/2023 | |
| Knox, Donald | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 03/01/2023 | |
| Schwartz, Eliezer | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 03/01/2023 | |
| Grants Pass 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 | 08/19/2025 | |
| Cossell, Patrick | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/07/2025 | |
| 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 | |
| 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.