5330 Ne Prescott Street, Portland, OR 97218 · Multnomah County · (503) 288-6585
99 certified beds, about 84 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1967
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 385045 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on December 8, 2025, inspectors cited 7 health deficiencies (the Oregon average is 9.2, the national average 9.2).
Of 49 health citations since May 2023, 3 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 3 fines totaling $43,788 in the last three years; the largest was $25,604, and the latest is dated April 9, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 4.73 hours per resident per day, against 5.03 across Oregon and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.43 of those hours.
43.6% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Oregon average 47.4%).
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 49 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to promptly respond to grievances and complaints from the resident council for three of four months reviewed. This placed residents at risk for a lack of resolution to voiced concerns.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide a clean and sanitary environment toilet/shower rooms for 3 of 4 communal resident bathrooms reviewed for homelike environment. This placed residents at risk for unsanitary conditions while using the communal toilet/shower rooms.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to develop and implement a resident-centered activity program for 1 of 2 sampled residents (#42) reviewed for activities. This placed residents at risk for a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to follow physician orders for 1 of 6 residents (#14) reviewed for unnecessary medications. This placed residents at risk for decreased weight loss.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide appropriate treatment and services to prevent further decreases in range of motion for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#42) reviewed for position and mobility. This placed residents at risk for worsening contractures (a permanent tightening of the muscle, tendons and skin causing the joint to shorten and stiffen) and conditions.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents received adequate supervision and smoking materials were properly secured for 1 of 2 sampled residents (#73) reviewed for accidents. This placed residents at risk for accidents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and records review it was determined the facility failed to practice proper food safety techniques for 1 of 4 (#5) residents reviewed for food. The placed residents at risk for consumption of contaminated food.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure a safe discharge from the facility for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#5) reviewed for discharge. This placed residents at risk for an unsafe discharge.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to protect the resident's right to be free from physical abuse for 1 of 1 resident (#2) reviewed for physical abuse. This resulted in physical injury and prolonged pain which required increased pharmaceutical interventions.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to accurately document wound assessments and dressing change refusals for 1 of 3 sampled residents (# 3) reviewed for accuracy of medical records. This placed residents at risk for inaccurate medical records and risk for injury and/or decreased ability for recovery.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to follow infection control standards for 1 of 3 residents (# 2) sampled reviewed for infection control. This placed residents at risk for exposure and contraction of infectious diseases.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to protect the resident's right to be free from sexual abuse by another resident for 1 of 1 sampled residents (#11) reviewed for sexual abuse. This placed residents at risk for psychological harm.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to follow infection control standards for 2 of 4 halls (East and Annex Halls), 1 of 1 dining room, and 2 of 4 sampled residents (#s 28 and 37) reviewed for dining and skin conditions. This placed residents at risk for exposure and contraction of infectious diseases.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview it was determined the facility failed to maintain a homelike environment for 3 of 4 halls 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 involve residents/representatives in the care planning process for 2 of 2 sampled residents (#s 4 and 41) reviewed for care planning and dementia. This placed residents at risk for unmet needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to follow up on grievances for 1 of 1 resident (#309) reviewed for personal property. This placed residents at risk for unmet needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure the Office of the State Long Term Care Ombudsman was notified of resident hospitalizations for 1 of 1 sampled resident (# 56) reviewed for hospitalization. This placed residents at risk for lack of advocacy by the Ombudsman's office.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide residents with a written notice of the facility's bed hold policy at the time of transfer to the hospital for 2 of 3 residents (#s 4 and 56 ) reviewed for hospitalization. This placed residents at risk for lack of knowledge regarding their choices and potential financial responsibilities.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to provided nail care services to 1 of 1 resident (# 24) reviewed for ADL care. This placed residents at risk of unmet care needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to start antibiotic treatment timely or follow physician orders for 2 of 9 sampled residents (#s 4 and 28) reviewed for skin condition and unnecessary medications. This placed residents at risk for unmet needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure necessary interventions were in place and followed to reduce the risk of falls and to thoroughly investigate the cause of a fall for 2 of 5 sampled residents (#s 37 and 360) reviewed for skin conditions and falls. This placed residents at risk for falls.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to follow physician orders and provide correct humidity administration for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#17) reviewed for respiratory care. This placed residents at risk for improper humidity administration.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to employ a Physical Therapist to provide therapy services to 1 of 1 resident (# 209) reviewed for therapy services. This placed residents at risk of a decline in function and/or a delayed recovery.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to have a plan in place to coordinate care and document hospice services for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#359) reviewed for hospice. This placed residents at risk for lack of coordination of care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to accurately assess residents for oxygen therapy and wounds for 2 of 6 sampled residents (#s 22 and 37) reviewed for respiratory care and skin conditions. This placed residents at risk for inaccurate assessments and unmet care needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure care plans were revised to accurately reflect the needs of residents for 2 of 7 sampled residents (#s 22 and 28) reviewed for respiratory care and unnecessary medications. This placed residents at risk for unmet needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview it was determined the facility failed to have adequate staff available to meet resident care needs in a timely manner for 1 of 1 facility reviewed for staffing and call light response times. This placed residents at risk for delayed and unmet needs and lengthy call light response times.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to implement policies and procedures for the prevention of sexual abuse for 2 of 2 sampled residents (#s 1 and 2) reviewed for abuse. This failure, determined to be an immediate jeopardy situation, placed residents at risk for sexual abuse when staff witnessed repeated nonconsensual sexual activity without putting interventions in place.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure a resident was provided supervision and positioning assistance with eating and follow a resident's care plan related to bed mobility and bathing for 2 of 3 sampled residents (#s 5 and 11) reviewed for accidents. This resulted in Resident 5 aspirating while eating without supervision and positioning assistance.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility's quality assessment and performance improvement committee (QAPI) failed to systematically identify and correct deficiencies in the areas of reporting abuse, safe discharge and accident prevention. This placed residents at risk of abuse, accidents and injuries.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were free from abuse for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#1) 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 for 2 of 3 sampled residents (#s 6 and 7) reviewed for abuse reporting. This placed residents at risk for abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure a safe discharge for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#13) reviewed for discharge. This placed residents at risk for accidents and lack of ADL care.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure a resident was provided ADL care for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#4) reviewed for ADLs. This placed residents at risk for poor hygiene and pressure ulcers.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure sufficient staffing to meet resident care needs in a timely manner for 4 of 6 residents (#s 6, 14, 18 and 25) reviewed for staffing concerns. 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 provide written information to residents concerning the right to formulate an advance directive for 3 of 3 sampled residents (#s 1, 44 and 99) reviewed for advance directives. This placed residents at risk for not having their health care decisions honored.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide a Notice of Medicare Non-coverage for 2 of 3 sampled residents (#s 102 and 103) reviewed for beneficiary notification. This placed residents at risk for unknown financial liabilities.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to protect the resident's right to be free from verbal abuse by a resident for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#248) reviewed for abuse. This placed residents at risk for abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review is was determined the facility failed to ensure a resident's care plan reflected the needs of the resident for 1 of 2 sampled residents (#99) reviewed for ADLs. This placed residents at risk for pain and injury.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide bed baths for 2 of 2 sampled residents (#s 6 and 99) reviewed for ADLs. This placed residents at risk for lack of hygiene.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure physician orders were followed for 2 of 6 sampled residents (#s 23 and 43) reviewed for unnecessary medications and amputation healing. This placed residents at risk for adverse medication consequences and inadequate amputation healing.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide necessary services for pressure ulcer care for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#7) reviewed for pressure ulcers. This placed residents at risk for worsening pressure ulcers.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide foot care for 1 of 2 sampled residents (#6) reviewed for ADLs. This placed residents at risk for increased foot problems.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide brace/splint devices to prevent further decrease in range of motion for 2 of 2 sampled residents (#s 14 and 27) reviewed for ROM. This placed residents at risk for worsening contractures.
Inspectors wrote1. Based on observation and interview it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents' environment was free from hazards for 1 of 1 facilities randomly observed. This placed residents at risk for injury and blood borne infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to conduct post dialysis assessments of resident's condition for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#31) reviewed for dialysis. This placed residents at risk for potential unmet care needs upon return from dialysis.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure resident records were accurate for 2 of 3 sampled residents (#s 43 and 99) reviewed for bathing and skin conditions. This placed residents at risk for poor hygiene and improper amputation healing.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview it was determined the facility failed to maintain respiratory care equipment in a sanitary manner and perform wound care in a sterile manner for 2 of 2 sampled residents (#s 29 and 99) reviewed for respiratory care. This placed residents at risk for infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents' call lights were functional for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#27) reviewed for call light functioning concerns. This placed residents at risk for delayed assistance.
5 fire safety citations on file: 2 on December 8, 2025, 2 on August 16, 2024, 1 on May 5, 2023.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| April 9, 2025 | Fine | $10,166 |
| January 4, 2024 | Fine | $8,018 |
| January 4, 2024 | Fine | $25,604 |
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) | 4.73 | 5.03 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.43 | 0.72 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 4.32 | 4.51 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 3.44 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.86 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 43.6% | 47.4% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 58.3% | 51.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.68 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 4.90 on weekdays and 4.32 on weekends, 12% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 4.2% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 4.79 in April to June 2025 to 4.73 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 | 4.73 | 0.43 | 4.90 | 4.32 | 4.2% | 2 of 90 | 84 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 4.81 | 0.42 | 5.03 | 4.27 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 81 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 4.68 | 0.45 | 4.87 | 4.20 | 0.6% | 0 of 92 | 81 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 4.79 | 0.48 | 4.97 | 4.36 | 5.1% | 0 of 91 | 81 |
| 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 | 4.7 | 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 | 0.0 | 2.0 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.9 | 2.4 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.3 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 9.6 | 20.6 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.1 | 5.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 17.3 | 13.9 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 10.2 | 21.4 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 8.1 | 16.1 | 12.0 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Porthaven Post Acute's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (49.4% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
49.4% 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. 78 eligible stays.
10.4% 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. 66 eligible stays.
6.8% 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. 34 eligible stays.
66.7% 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. 39 residents counted.
1.5% 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. 66 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. 66 residents counted.
87.0% 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. 23 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: PORTHAVEN 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Truist Bank | 5% or greater security interest | Organization | 09/01/2024 | |
| Apt, Frederick | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 05/10/2024 | |
| Jergensen, Joshua | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 05/10/2024 | |
| Mitchell, John | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 05/10/2024 | |
| Morris, Christopher | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 09/01/2024 | |
| Warr, Brandon | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 09/09/2024 | |
| Welch, Ezekiel | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 09/01/2024 | |
| LTC Properties Inc | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 09/01/2024 | |
| Providence Administrative Consulting Services Inc | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 09/01/2024 | |
| Morris, Christopher | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/05/2025 | |
| Warr, Brandon | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/05/2025 |
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.