1201 McLean Blvd., Eugene, OR 97405 · Lane County · (541) 683-2155
83 certified beds, about 57 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1967
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 385046 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on January 30, 2026, inspectors cited 7 health deficiencies (the Oregon average is 9.2, the national average 9.2).
None of its 43 health citations since March 2023 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy.
CMS lists no fines against this home in the last three years.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 4.74 hours per resident per day, against 5.03 across Oregon and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.50 of those hours.
51.8% 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 43 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure ongoing assessments were conducted for non-pressure skin wounds for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#4) reviewed for non-pressure skin wounds. This placed residents at risk for worsening wounds.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to provide adequate catheter care for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#1) reviewed for catheter care. This placed residents at risk for unmet catheter needs. Resident 1 was admitted to the facility in 12/2025 with diagnoses including obstructive and reflux uropathy (disease of the urinary system caused by blockage and backward urine flow). The 1/2026 TAR indicated for staff to change the suprapubic catheter every 30 days. On 1/12/26 the TAR indicated to hold the treatment and referred the reader to Administration Notes. A 1/12/26 Administration Note indicated the suprapubic catheter was not changed because staff were waiting for pending special instructions from the in-house provider because of a penile implant (device surgically inserted into the penis). [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure proper labeling of biologicals for 2 of 3 treatment carts reviewed for medication storage and failed to ensure treatment carts were properly secured during a random observation. This placed residents at risk for reduced efficacy of medication and unauthorized access to medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to follow the facility bowel protocol and administer medication as ordered for 2 of 5 sampled residents (#s 5 and 8) reviewed for medication. This placed residents at risk for constipation.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents' narcotic drug records were in order and an account of all controlled drugs was maintained for 2 of 3 medication carts reviewed for medication storage. This placed residents at risk for inaccurate clinical records related to narcotics and drug diversion.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure residents were free from unnecessary medications for 1 of 5 sampled residents (#5) reviewed for medication. This placed residents at risk for adverse drug events.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to maintain a medication error rate of less than 5%. There were 2 errors in 27 opportunities resulting in a 7% error rate. This placed residents at risk for adverse medication side effects.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide dental services for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#7) reviewed for dental services. This placed residents at risk for unmet dental needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure medical records were accurate for 1 of 5 sampled residents (#5) reviewed for medication. This placed residents at risk for medication errors.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to investigate a potential case of abuse and investigate a fall in a timely manner for 2 of 4 sampled residents (#103 and 113) reviewed for accidents and abuse. This placed residents at risk for abuse and neglect.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to maintain a safe environment free from accident hazards for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#103) reviewed for accidents. This placed residents at risk for injury.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide assistance with eating as care planned for 1 of 3 resident (#112) reviewed for hydration. This placed residents at risk for unmet needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to process physician laboratory orders timely for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#113) reviewed for abuse. This placed residents at risk for untreated medical needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure a system was in place to honor resident food preferences for 4 of 4 sampled residents (#s 17, 19, 21, and 37) reviewed for dietary needs. This placed residents at risk for unmet nutritional needs and lessened quality of life. 1. Resident 17 was admitted to the facility in 2016 with diagnoses including diabetes. On 8/27/24 at 10:36 AM Resident 17 stated she/he was not given a menu to select her/his preferred meals. On 8/29/24 at 10:38 AM Staff 22 (CNA) stated about one month ago the facility stopped providing residents with a menu to choose between the main or alternate meal. Staff 22 stated several residents, including Resident 17, were upset about this as their opportunity to make a choice was taken away. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview it was determined the facility failed to ensure the kitchen was cleaned, failed to ensure food was stored appropriately and discarded in a timely manner, and failed to monitor refrigerator temperatures for 1 of 1 kitchen and 1 of 2 refrigerators reviewed for sanitary conditions. This placed residents at risk for foodborne illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure a resident rooms were in good repair and free of odors for 5 of 5 sampled residents (#s 6, 19, 27, 32 and 33) 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 Staff 13 (LPN) had the appropriate competencies and skills for infection control during CBG checks and administration of insulin. This placed residents at risk for bloodborne illness and reduced efficacy of medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure an RN was available for at least eight consecutive hours per day for 3 of 31 days reviewed for RN coverage. This placed residents at risk for delayed nursing assessments.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure proper storage temperatures were maintained for 1 of 2 medication storage refrigerators, and proper labeling of biologicals and securing of treatment carts for 1 of 3 treatment carts reviewed for medication storage. This placed residents at risk for reduced efficacy of medication and unauthorized access to medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide risk and benefit information for a psychotropic medication for 1 of 5 sampled residents (#37) reviewed for unnecessary medications. This placed the residents at risk for lack of ability to make informed decisions about their care.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to obtain information related to advance directives and health care decisions for 3 of 4 sampled residents (#s 17, 34 and 37) reviewed for advance directives. This placed residents at risk for not having their health care decisions honored.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure oxygen was administered as ordered and failed to ensure residents' respiratory equipment was maintained for 2 of 2 sampled residents (#s 6 and 10) reviewed for respiratory care, ADLs and dialysis. This placed residents at risk for respiratory concerns.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure the community use CBG glucometer was properly cleaned and sanitized between resident uses for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#24) reviewed during CBG checks. This placed all residents who required CBG checks at risk for bloodborne illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview it was determined the facility failed to maintain essential kitchen equipment in safe operating condition for 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for kitchen services.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to notify the resident's family after a change of condition and transfer to a local hospital for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#23) reviewed for change of condition. This placed residents at risk for lack of notification.
Inspectors wroteBassed on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide ADL care for 1 of 8 (#13) sampled residents reviewed for ADLs. This placed other residents at risk for lack of daily care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure the kitchen was cleaned and standard food safety practices were followed for 1 of 1 kitchen. This placed residents at risk for food borne illnesses.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to follow physicians' orders and care plan interventions for 5 of 16 sampled residents (#s 7, 21, 25, 38 and 44) reviewed for edema, medications, constipation/diarrhea, ADLs and accidents. This placed residents at risk for unmet needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure RN coverage for eight consecutive hours in a 24-hour period for 17 out of 29 days reviewed for staffing. This placed residents at risk for unassessed needs and lack of care.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure the required annual training and annual performance reviews were completed for 4 of 4 sampled CNA staff (#s 15, 25, 28 and 29) 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 follow transmission based precautions for aerosol generating procedures for 1 of 4 halls (East Hall) reviewed for infection control and failed to follow infection control standards for 2 of 4 halls (South and West) reviewed for infection control. This placed residents at risk for exposure and contraction of infectious diseases.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide written notification to 2 of 3 sampled residents (#s 303 and 304) reviewed for beneficiary notification. This placed residents at risk for unknown financial liabilities.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to comprehensively assess 1 of 2 sampled residents (# 3) reviewed for positioning and mobility. This placed residents at risk for lack of proper care and services.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to accurately assess 1 of 1 sampled resident (#s 12) reviewed for privacy. This placed residents at risk for lack of proper care and services.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan for 1 of 5 sampled residents (#34) reviewed for medications. This placed residents at risk for unmet needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to revise care plans for 3 of 5 sampled residents (#s 24, 28 and 38) reviewed for ADLs, nutrition and accidents. This placed residents at risk for unmet needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure dependent residents received required assistance with ADLs for 2 of 6 sampled residents (#s 14 and 44) reviewed for ADLs. This placed resident at risk for unmet needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to accurately assess, identify and provide treatment to wounds for 2 of 2 sampled residents (#s 4 and 28) reviewed for pressure ulcers. This place residents at risk for unmet wound care needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure appropriate foot care was provided for 1 of 6 sampled residents (#14) reviewed for ADLs. This placed residents at risk for unmet foot care needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to providerange of motionservices and care for contractures for 3 of 7 sampled residents (#s 3, 7 and 9) reviewed for ROM and ADLs. This placed residents at risk for ROM decline.
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 1 sampled resident (#44) reviewed for behavioral needs. This placed residents at risk for unmet trauma needs and a decrease in their quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to complete a person-centered care plan, provide ongoing behavioral health needs and timely address mood symptoms for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#44) reviewed for behavioral needs. This placed residents at risk for unmet behavioral health needs and decrease in their quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide medically related social services to attain or maintain the highest practicable mental and psychosocial well-being for 1 of 1 resident (#44) reviewed for behavioral and emotional needs. This placed residents at risk for unmet needs.
8 fire safety citations on file: 1 on January 30, 2026, 4 on August 30, 2024, 3 on March 24, 2023.
CMS lists no fines or payment denials against this home in the last three years. The national average is 0.9 fines per home.
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) | 4.74 | 5.03 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.50 | 0.72 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 4.12 | 4.51 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 3.05 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.20 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 51.8% | 47.4% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 55.6% | 51.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.45 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 5.00 on weekdays and 4.12 on weekends, 18% 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 5.14 in April to June 2025 to 4.74 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 | 4.74 | 0.50 | 5.00 | 4.12 | 0.1% | 0 of 90 | 57 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 5.14 | 0.58 | 5.38 | 4.53 | 1.8% | 0 of 92 | 56 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 5.03 | 0.49 | 5.36 | 4.20 | 5.8% | 1 of 92 | 55 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 5.14 | 0.40 | 5.49 | 4.25 | 3.6% | 0 of 91 | 52 |
| 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 | 5.1 | 14.9 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.4 | 1.4 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.2 | 2.0 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.6 | 2.4 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.5 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.8 | 20.6 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 9.7 | 5.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 7.0 | 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 | 17.4 | 16.1 | 12.0 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Hillside Heights Rehabilitation Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (45.7% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
45.7% this home
No different from 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. 38 eligible stays.
10.8% 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. 39 eligible stays.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
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. 14 eligible stays.
80.0% 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. 20 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. 36 residents counted.
0.0% 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. 36 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. 15 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: COLLEGE HILL 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 | |
| College Hill 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 | |
| Dunham, Sarah | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/01/2025 | |
| Hohnstein, Phillip | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 03/01/2023 | |
| Knox, Donald | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 03/01/2023 | |
| Schwartz, Eliezer | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 03/01/2023 | |
| College Hill 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 | 08/18/2025 | |
| Dunham, Sarah | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/01/2025 | |
| Hagar, Chaim | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 03/01/2023 | |
| Hohnstein, Phillip | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 03/01/2023 | |
| 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.