6040 Se Belmont Street, Portland, OR 97215 · Multnomah County · (503) 231-7166
120 certified beds, about 68 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1978
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 385141 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on June 6, 2025, inspectors cited 9 health deficiencies (the Oregon average is 9.2, the national average 9.2).
None of its 44 health citations since November 2022 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 4.85 hours per resident per day, against 5.03 across Oregon and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.49 of those hours.
70.8% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Oregon average 47.4%).
CMS links it to Hill Valley Healthcare, an affiliated group of 43 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 44 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to report an allegation of verbal abuse within two hours to the State Agency for 1 of 4 sampled residents (#14) reviewed for abuse. This placed residents at risk for ongoing verbal abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to fully develop a baseline care plan related to falls within 48 hours for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#13) reviewed for care plans. This placed residents at risk for falls.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to implement care plan interventions for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#6) reviewed for ADLs. This placed residents at risk for not receiving showers.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide showers or bed baths for 1 of 3 sampled residents (# 11) reviewed for ADLs. This placed residents at risk for not receiving adequate assistance with ADLs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to follow physician orders for 3 of 4 sampled residents (#s 2, 4, and 13) reviewed for medications. This placed residents at risk for medication errors.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to provide meals according to preferences and according to recommendations made by a clinician for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#12) reviewed for food preferences. This placed residents at risk for weight loss.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide transportation for dialysis treatments for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#1) reviewed for dialysis care. This placed residents at risk for not receiving their dialysis services according to their schedules.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure licensed nursing staff had the necessary competencies to care for residents with feeding tubes for 1 of 1 licensed staff (#25) reviewed for tube feedings. This placed residents at risk for incorrect tube feed and water flush administration.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to follow physician orders for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#1) reviewed for physician orders. This placed residents at risk for adverse health consequences.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide necessary care and services for tube feeding nutrition for 1 of 2 sampled residents (#1) reviewed for tube feedings. This placed residents at risk for dehydration and declining nutritional status.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to adhere to Enhance Barrier Precautions related to feeding tubes for 1 of 2 sampled residents (#1) reviewed for infection control. This placed residents at risk for infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure a system was in place to receive and resolve resident and/or resident representative grievances for 1 of 1 sampled facility reviewed for Resident Council. This placed residents at risk for unreported and unresolved grievances.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to complete a comprehensive assessment for 4 of 8 sampled resident (#s 3, 254, 355 and 404) who were reviewed for accidents, ADLs, pain and food. This placed residents at risk for unidentified care needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to properly store food and failed to maintain sanitary conditions in 1 of 1 kitchen and 1 of 3 unit refrigerators. This placed residents at risk for food borne illness and contaminated food.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to respect resident rights for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#8) reviewed for personal property. This placed residents at risk for diminished quality of life.
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 (#44) reviewed for self-administration of medications. This placed residents at risk for unsafe medication administration and adverse medication side effects.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview it was determined the facility failed to provide maintenance to maintain a safe, comfortable and homelike environment for 1 of 1 facility reviewed for physical environment. This placed residents at risk for an unsafe and unkempt interior building.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview it was determined the facility failed to complete MDS assessments which reflected accurate mental health diagnoses for 1 of 5 sampled residents (#45) reviewed for medications. This placed residents at risk for inaccurate assessment and care.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure Staff 17 (Former Agency LPN) adhered to professional standards for medication management and licensed nurse oversight of assigned residents. This placed residents at risk for adverse side effects of medication and unmet medical needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to implement fall interventions to reduce hazards and risks for 1 of 3 sampled resident (#3) reviewed for accidents. This placed residents at risk for injury.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure Staff 17 (Former Agency LPN) adhered to medication administration and treatment management for 7 of 7 sampled residents (#s 5, 17, 21, 27, 31, 36, and 155) reviewed for failure to follow physician orders. This placed residents at risk for adverse side effects and unmet medical needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were free from sexual abuse for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#202) reviewed for abuse. This placed residents at risk for abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to timely report allegations of abuse to the State Survey Agency for 2 of 3 sampled residents (#s 201 and 202) reviewed for abuse. This placed residents at risk for delayed and incomplete investigations.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview it was determined the facility failed to maintain a homelike environment for 1 of 1 facility reviewed for environment. This placed residents at risk for living in an unkempt environment.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure timely call light responses on 2 of 2 sampled units and for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#15) reviewed for sufficient staffing. This placed residents at risk for delayed and unmet needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure CNAs received annual performance reviews for 5 of 5 randomly selected CNA staff (#s 7, 13, 28, 29 and 30) reviewed for staffing. This placed residents at risk for lack of care by competent staff.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure medications were secured, maintain and log appropriate medication storage temperatures and ensure proper labeling of biologicals for 3 of 3 floors reviewed for safe medication storage. This placed residents at risk for receiving medications with reduced efficacy and access to potentially harmful medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview it was determined the facility failed to prepare and serve food in a safe and sanitary environment for 1 of 1 kitchen observed for food service. This placed residents at risk for foodborne illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide a restorative program to maintain or improve ROM for 1 of 2 sampled residents (#14) reviewed for ROM. This placed residents at risk for decline in ROM.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to assess for care plan effectiveness, identify and implement new fall interventions or provide adequate supervision needed to prevent falls for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#36) reviewed for falls. This placed residents at risk for avoidable falls.
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 with 35 opportunities resulting in an 5.71% medication error rate. This placed residents at risk for adverse drug reactions.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure consent was obtained prior to administering psychotropic medications to residents for 1 of 5 sampled residents (#305) reviewed for unnecessary medications. This placed residents at risk for being uninformed about their medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to notify the physician and the resident's responsible party of a change of condition for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#153) reviewed for change of condition. This placed residents at risk for delayed treatment and uniformed responsible parties.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to properly secure controlled medications for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#11) reviewed for misappropriation. This placed residents at risk for loss of medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview it was determined the facility failed to store food in a sanitary manner and ensure dietary staff wore facial hair restraints for 1 of 1 kitchen staff serving all residents within the facility and 1 of 1 steam carts. This placed residents at risk for food borne illness and contaminated food.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure a common-use glucometer (a device used to obtain blood glucose levels) was appropriately disinfected between uses for 3 of 3 sampled residents (#s 10, 24 and 29) reviewed for CBG monitoring. This placed residents at risk for bloodborne infections.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents received reasonable accommodation of needs for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#10) reviewed for accommodation of needs. This placed residents at risk for not meeting resident's individualized needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview it was determined the facility failed to ensure resident privacy was provided for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#10) reviewed for dignity. This placed residents at risk for lack of privacy.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were free from physical restraints for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#15) reviewed for restraints. This placed residents at risk for being physically restrained.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to comprehensively assess restraints for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#15) reviewed for physical restraints. This placed residents at risk for unassessed physical restraints.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide nail care for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#17) reviewed for ADL care. This placed residents at risk for unmet care needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to implement interventions to prevent pressure ulcers and skin breakdown for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#17) reviewed for positioning. This placed residents at risk for the development of pressure ulcers and skin breakdown.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide routine diabetic foot care for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#17) reviewed for foot care. This placed residents at risk for infection and pain.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure safety interventions were in place to prevent elopement for 1 of 2 sampled residents (#23) reviewed for elopement. This put residents at risk for potentially avoidable accidents.
18 fire safety citations on file: 2 on November 26, 2025, 3 on June 6, 2025, 1 on July 17, 2024, 8 on February 23, 2024, 4 on November 18, 2022.
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) | 4.85 | 5.03 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.49 | 0.72 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 4.53 | 4.51 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 3.49 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.87 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 70.8% | 47.4% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 87.5% | 51.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 3.63 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 4.98 on weekdays and 4.53 on weekends, 9% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 26.2% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 5.41 in April to June 2025 to 4.85 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 | 4.85 | 0.49 | 4.98 | 4.53 | 26.2% | 0 of 90 | 68 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 4.86 | 0.87 | 4.98 | 4.56 | 21.1% | 0 of 92 | 59 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 5.05 | 0.87 | 5.26 | 4.52 | 23.7% | 0 of 92 | 57 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 5.41 | 1.03 | 5.64 | 4.84 | 15.0% | 0 of 91 | 59 |
| 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 | 14.0 | 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 | 5.4 | 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 | 16.9 | 20.6 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 7.5 | 5.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 11.2 | 13.9 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 21.6 | 21.4 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 9.9 | 16.1 | 12.0 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Mt. Tabor Health & Rehabilitation's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it better than the national rate (71.6% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
71.6% 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. 139 eligible stays.
8.1% 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. 130 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. 95 eligible stays.
43.9% 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. 66 residents counted.
1.1% 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. 92 residents counted.
3.2% 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. 92 residents counted.
96.8% 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. 62 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: MT TABOR SNF OPERATIONS LLC. CMS links this home to Hill Valley Healthcare, a group of 43 nursing homes averaging 1.7 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mt Tabor SNF Operations Holdings LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 06/01/2025 |
| Delilah 2626 Holdings LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 06/01/2025 | |
| Jml 1836 Holdings LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 06/01/2025 | |
| Lansilh Irrv Tr | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 06/01/2025 | |
| Idels, Shimon | Corporate officer | Individual | 06/01/2025 | |
| Delilah 2626 Holdings LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 06/01/2025 | |
| Jml 1836 Holdings LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 06/01/2025 | |
| Lion 26 Holdings LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 06/01/2025 | |
| Mt Tabor SNF Operations Holdings LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 06/01/2025 | |
| Sabrina 1818 Holdings LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 06/01/2025 | |
| Saessy Irrevocable Trust | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 06/01/2025 | |
| Tatiriq Irrevocable Trust | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 06/01/2025 | |
| Idels, Shimon | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 06/01/2025 | |
| Olum, April | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 06/01/2025 | |
| Slavik, Lisa | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 06/01/2025 | |
| Lion 26 Holdings LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/08/2025 | |
| Mt Tabor SNF Operations Holdings LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/08/2025 | |
| Sabrina 1818 Holdings LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/08/2025 | |
| Idels, Shimon | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/01/2025 | |
| Olum, April | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/01/2025 | |
| Slavik, Lisa | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/01/2025 |
As listed in the CMS ownership file, which names owners with a 5% or greater stake and the people and companies with operational or managerial control.
Chosen from this home's own inspection record.
These are the official offices in Oregon. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.