1014 Burrell Avenue, Lewiston, ID 83501 · Nez Perce County · (208) 743-4558
127 certified beds, about 70 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1988
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 135103 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on August 15, 2025, inspectors cited 8 health deficiencies (the Idaho average is 10.3, the national average 9.2).
Of 33 health citations since October 2023, 1 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $16,790 in the last three years; the largest was $16,790, and the latest is dated December 8, 2023.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.39 hours per resident per day, against 4.04 across Idaho and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.94 of those hours.
46.0% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Idaho average 50.3%).
CMS links it to PACS Group, an affiliated group of 275 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 33 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to maintain sanitation in one of one dining room area by allowing a dog to wander the dining area and into two of eight residents' rooms during a meal. This failure had the potential to expose the residents to harmful pathogens and infections.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to protect the residents right to be free from physical abuse by other residents for two out of nine residents (Resident (R) 32, and R61) reviewed for abuse of 25 sample residents. These failures had the potential to cause physical harm or psychosocial distress.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility did not ensure an alleged violation involving abuse was reported immediately to the Director of Nursing (DON) and to other officials in accordance with state law through established procedures for two of nine residents (Resident (R) 6 and R69) reviewed for abuse of 25 sample residents. This failure decreased the facility's potential to protect the residents from a possible allegation of abuse and ensure a safe environment during the investigation.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interview, and policy review, facility staff failed to protect one of nine residents (Resident (R) 69) reviewed for abuse from further abuse by not immediately removing a staff from the facility who was accused of sexual abuse of 25 sample residents. This failure decreased the facility's potential to protect the residents and ensure a safe environment during the investigation.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual, the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set (MDS) accurately reflected the medication usage of three (Resident (R) 4, R61, and R34) of 25 residents reviewed in the sample. These failures created potential for an incomplete or ineffective plan of care related to medication use and side effect monitoring.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a newly admitted resident had a baseline care plan documented within 48 hours of admission for one of four residents (Resident (R) 70) reviewed for baseline care plan of 10 newly admitted residents. As a result of this deficient practice the residents had the potential for care needed not being provided during the initial days of admission to the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive Care Plan for one of 25 sample residents (Resident (R) 4) that addressed psychiatric diagnoses and needs. This placed R4 at risk for unmet psychosocial and behavioral care needs and the inability to meet their maximum practicable level of functioning.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the indwelling urinary catheter tubing and collection bag were not in contact with the floor for one of three residents (Resident (R) 54) reviewed for catheters and urinary tract infection of 25 sample residents. This failure placed the residents at risk for transmission of infection to the urinary tract.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, policy review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure medications and medical supplies available for residents were not expired. This was true for 1 of 2 medication storage rooms observed. This failure created the potential for residents to receive expired medications or medical supplies with decreased efficacy.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to label, date, and/or cover food stored in kitchen refrigeration units and dry storage areas. The facility also failed to discard food with expired use by dates and ensure a scoop was not stored in a container of brown sugar. This failure had the potential to create an environment for food-borne illnesses which could affect residents who consumed food prepared from the facility's kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, facility menu review, and policy review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure menus were followed as planned for 3 of 3 residents (Resident #16, #25, and #36) reviewed for this concern. This failure had the potential to cause nutritional needs to go unmet for residents who consumed food prepared from the facility's kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, test tray review, record review, review of Resident Council Meeting Minutes, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to serve food that was palatable for 7 of 7 residents (Residents' #10, #16, #17, #20, #24, #25, and #26) reviewed for food palatability. This failure created the potential to cause unmet nutritional needs for residents who consumed food prepared from the facility's kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, review of Resident Council Minutes, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to offer and provide between-meal snacks to 4 of 4 residents (Residents' #5, #16, #20, and #25) reviewed for snacks and 3 additional residents (Residents' #29, #35, and #42) who participated in the Resident Council Interview. This failure had the potential to cause unmet nutritional needs for residents who resided in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interview, and resident interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure a therapeutic diet was served to 1 of 3 residents (Resident #29) who were prescribed renal diets. This failure placed Resident #29 at risk for complications related to her kidney disease.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were protected from significant medication errors. This was true for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #42) reviewed for medication errors. This deficient practice created the potential for harm when the facility failed to administer Resident #42's blood pressure medication for four consecutive days
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to honor known food preferences for 2 of 2 residents (Resident's #10 and #25) reviewed for food choices. This failure created the potential to cause nutritional needs to go unmet for residents who consumed food prepared from the facility's kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on policy review, I&A review, record review, and review of the facility's investigation report, it was determined the facility failed to ensure adequate supervision for residents to prevent falls. This was true for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #60) whose record was reviewed for falls. This resulted in harm to Resident #60 when the proper supervision was not provided.
Inspectors wroteBased on facility document review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to meet regulation requirements for the participation of Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) committee members in the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) meetings. This failure had the potential to negatively affect all residents in the facility if quality deficiencies throughout the facility were not identified and responded to timely and appropriately.
Inspectors wroteBased on policy review, review of grievance logs, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure resident grievances were promptly addressed and the responses to the grievances documented. These deficient practices placed residents at risk of ongoing frustration and decreased sense of self-worth, as well as unmet care needs when their concerns were not promptly addressed by the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, policy review, resident interview, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure pre and post dialysis assessments were completed and accurate, an emergency kit was available at the bedside, and orders were followed for 3 of 6 residents (#25, #29, and #31) who received hemodialysis. This created the potential for adverse outcomes such as acute blood loss from the access site, infection of the access site, electrolyte imbalance, low blood pressure, and anemia.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of staff time sheets, record review, resident interview, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents received physical therapy services as ordered by their physician. This was true for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #55) reviewed for rehabilitative services. This failure created the potential for all residents in the facility who required physical therapy services to experience a decline in their physical functioning and ability to do ADLs when these services were not provided consistently.
Inspectors wroteBased on policy review, record review, and resident, resident representative, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure a resident or their representative participated in establishing the expected goals and outcomes of care. This was true for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #55) reviewed for care plans. This failure created the potential for harm if a resident experienced a decline in physical, mental, or psychosocial functioning due to lack of their input toward their goals.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, policy review, record review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure chest straps were assessed as potential restraints. This was true for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #38) reviewed for restraints. This deficient practice had the potential for adverse outcomes if the chest strap was improperly used and if the resident experienced physical deterioration due to lack of movement.
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy and record review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure information was provided to the receiving facility when a resident was transferred to another long-term care facility. This was true for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #40) reviewed for resident transfer. This deficient practice had the potential to result in adverse outcomes if Resident #40 was not treated in a timely manner due to lack of information provided upon transfer.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure resident care plans were revised to reflect current needs and interventions. This was true for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #9) whose care plans were reviewed. This placed Resident #9 at risk for adverse outcomes when his care plan was not revised to reflect current services.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure physician orders were followed prior to administering medication. This was true for 1 of 7 residents (Resident #254) whose medication records were reviewed. This failure created the potential to adversely affect residents whose care and services were not delivered according to their physician orders.
Inspectors wroteBased on policy review, record review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure restorative services were provided to increase range of motion and/or to prevent further decrease in range of motion. This was true for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #9) reviewed for restorative services. This failure placed Resident #9 at risk of decline in range of motion and function.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, policy review, record review, and resident and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure physician orders and indication for amount, method, and duration of oxygen usage were documented for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #29) reviewed for oxygen use. This deficient practice placed Resident #29 at risk of respiratory distress due to receiving too much or too little oxygen.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were free of significant medication errors. This was true for 1 of 7 residents (Resident #259) whose medications were reviewed. This failure created the potential for harm to Resident #259 when her medication was not administered as ordered by the physician.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, and resident and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 1 resident (Resident #34) reviewed for the provision of dental services was provided with routine dental services. This failure created the potential for Resident #34 to experience physical discomfort and mental anguish when dental services were not provided.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents received a therapeutic diet following physician orders for 1 of 14 residents (Resident #13) whose dietary orders were reviewed. This placed residents at risk for adverse outcomes such as choking, aspiration of food and/or liquid, and worsening of diagnosed diseases and conditions.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure hand hygiene was performed as needed by staff during meal service for 1 of 2 meals observed at the facility in the main dining room. This failure to perform hand hygiene had the potential to impact all residents who ate in the dining room and placed the residents at risk for cross contamination and infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on policy review, observation, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure infection control measures were consistently implemented and maintained to provide a safe and sanitary environment during medication administration. This was true for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #54) whose medication administration was observed. This failure created the potential for harm by exposing Resident #54 to the risk of infection.
18 fire safety citations on file: 15 on August 15, 2025, 3 on October 11, 2024.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| December 8, 2023 | Fine | $16,790 |
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 | Idaho | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 3.39 | 4.04 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.94 | 0.86 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.01 | 3.49 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.97 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.47 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 46.0% | 50.3% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 26.7% | 40.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.58 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 3.54 on weekdays and 3.01 on weekends, 15% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 11.3% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.63 in April to June 2025 to 3.39 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 | 3.39 | 0.94 | 3.54 | 3.01 | 11.3% | 0 of 90 | 70 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.43 | 1.02 | 3.61 | 3.00 | 7.4% | 0 of 92 | 64 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.62 | 1.04 | 3.79 | 3.19 | 10.3% | 0 of 92 | 63 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.63 | 1.06 | 3.82 | 3.15 | 8.3% | 0 of 91 | 60 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Idaho, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.90 | 0.80 | 4.11 | 3.37 | 4.9% | 0.2% 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Idaho, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $18.58 | $17.45 to $22.23 | 7,910 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $30.67 | $28.04 to $35.60 | 1,880 |
| Registered nurses | $44.45 | $38.90 to $49.19 | 16,880 |
| 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 | Idaho | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 25.4 | 15.6 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 2.0 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.4 | 3.0 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 1.8 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 27.9 | 16.1 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.9 | 3.2 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 16.1 | 20.1 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 17.4 | 17.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 11.2 | 12.3 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.9 | 1.2 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.8 | 1.7 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Orchard View Post Acute's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (40.2% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
40.2% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · Idaho: 18 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. 37 eligible stays.
11.2% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Idaho: 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. 48 eligible stays.
6.7% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 7.1% · Idaho: 1 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. 27 eligible stays.
52.4% this home
Median of homes: Idaho62.2% · 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. 21 residents counted.
0.0% this home
Median of homes: Idaho0.0% · 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. 33 residents counted.
3.4% this home
Median of homes: Idaho1.1% · 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. 33 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: Idaho98.1% · 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. 10 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: ORCHARD VIEW SNF HEALTHCARE LLC. CMS links this home to PACS Group, a group of 275 nursing homes averaging 2.9 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hancock, Mark | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 05/09/2024 | |
| Murray, Jason | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 05/09/2024 | |
| Jergensen, Joshua | Corporate officer | Individual | 08/01/2025 | |
| Mitchell, John | Corporate officer | Individual | 02/10/2021 | |
| Bodene, Gregory | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/09/2024 | |
| Richmond, Heidi | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 09/01/2024 | |
| Strobel, Thomas | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 09/01/2024 | |
| Bodene, Gregory | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 08/14/2025 | |
| Strobel, Thomas | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 09/01/2024 |
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 Idaho. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.