3111 Channing Way, Idaho Falls, ID 83404 · Bonneville County · (208) 529-0067
88 certified beds, about 70 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 2013
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 135138 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on March 6, 2026, inspectors cited 13 health deficiencies (the Idaho average is 10.3, the national average 9.2).
Of 37 health citations since August 2022, 2 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists 2 fines totaling $36,190 in the last three years; the largest was $25,604, and the latest is dated December 20, 2024.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.78 hours per resident per day, against 4.04 across Idaho and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 1.31 of those hours.
60.8% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Idaho average 50.3%).
CMS links it to Cascadia Healthcare, an affiliated group of 47 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 37 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on policy review, observation, record review, and interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were initially assessed to determine if they were safe to self-administer medications for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #49). This failure created the potential for adverse effects if residents self-administered medications inappropriately.
Inspectors wroteBased on policy review, observation, record review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure a resident's call light was within reach for 2 of 17 residents (#4 and #5) reviewed for residents' rights. This deficient practice had the potential to cause harm if the resident could not call for assistance when needed or experienced an adverse medical event that required attention.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to provide the Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) (CMS- 10123 form) for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #81) reviewed for beneficiary protection notification. This deficient practice had the potential to cause financial harm or distress for residents when they were not informed of their potential liability for payment when their Medicare Part A benefits ended.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were provided with a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment. This was true for the facility. This deficient practice created the potential for diminished quality of life and safety risk including potential for infections and cross-contamination.
Inspectors wroteBased on policy review, record review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure a written notice of transfer and bed hold policy was provided to the resident or their representative when residents were transferred to the hospital. This was true for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #23) reviewed for transfers. This deficient practice created the potential for psychosocial distress if residents and their representatives were not made aware of or able to exercise their rights related to transfers from the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review, and interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure a baseline care plan was developed within 48 hours of resident's admission. This was true for 2 of 3 Residents (#2 & #73) reviewed for baseline care plan. This failure created the potential for harm when the care plan failed to provide direction for care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, 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 6 residents (Resident #3) whose care plans were reviewed. This placed residents at risk for adverse outcomes if care and services were not provided due to care plans not being revised as residents' needs changed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure nurse staffing information was accurate and posted daily for each shift. This failed practice had the potential to affect all residents residing in the facility and their representatives, visitors, and others who wanted to review the facility's staffing levels.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure controlled medications were tracked and kept secure from potential theft and/or diversion. This was true for 2 of 2 medication carts reviewed. This failure created the potential for undetected misuse and/or diversion of controlled medications and had the potential to affect all residents who received controlled medication in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on policy review, record review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure physician orders documented adequate indications, diagnosis, or duration for use when residents were prescribed antibiotics. This was true for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #14), reviewed for antibiotic use. This failed practice had the potential to cause significant harm if the resident was to develop an antimicrobial resistance or toxicity.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, and staff interviews it was determined the facility failed to ensure medications were not expired and were secure and inaccessible to unauthorized staff and residents. This was true for the facility. This failure created the potential for residents to receive expired medications with decreased efficacy and potential for harm to a resident if they obtain medications which were left unattended and unsecured by staff.
Inspectors wroteBased on the FDA Food Code, policy review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure food was appropriately stored, distributed, and labeled, cooking equipment was free of encrustation, and the floors were properly cleaned and sanitized. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all residents who received meals prepared in the facility's kitchen. This placed residents at risk for potential contamination of food and adverse health outcomes including food-borne illnesses.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure infection control prevention practices were maintained to provide a safe and sanitary environment during medication administration. This was true for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #60) observed for infection control. These failures put residents at risk for cross contamination and infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, policy review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were provided with a clean, safe, homelike environment. This was true for all residents who resided in the facility who are transferred with Hoyer lift equipment. This deficient practice created the potential for harm from cross contamination due to equipment not being cleaned between use.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure resident's care plans were revised to reflect current needs and interventions. This was true for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #5) whose care plans were reviewed. This placed residents at risk for adverse outcomes if care and services were not provided due to care plans not being revised as residents' needs changed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure medications available for residents were stored appropriately; this was true for 1 of 18 resident's rooms inspected (Resident #1). This failure created the potential for adverse effects if residents self-administered medications inappropriately or did not take their medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure adherence to infection control and prevention practices to provide a safe and sanitary environment, when staff did not follow proper enhanced barrier precautions protocol. These failures had the potential to impact 1 of 5 residents (Resident #70) observed with EBP signs on their room doors, placing them all at risk for cross-contamination and infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, policy review, record review, staff interview, and review of the facility's investigation report, it was determined the facility failed to ensure proper storage and use of Hoyer lift equipment to prevent resident falls or injury. This was true for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #233) whose record was reviewed for falls. This resulted in harm to Resident #233 when proper use of a Hoyer lift was not provided.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of policy, record review, and interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure a) Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) were trained and had documented competencies to operate the facility Hoyer lifts and b) Licensed nurses had appropriate competencies and skills sets to provide respiratory related services to residents. This was true for all nursing staff employed by the facility. This had the potential for adverse effects and harm to residents who are transferred with Hoyer lifts or had an order for respiratory therapy.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure a) the kitchen equipment and environment was maintained and clean, and b) food was served in a safe and sanitary manner. These deficiencies placed all residents who consumed food prepared by the facility at risk for potential contamination of food and adverse health outcomes, including food-borne illnesses.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, policy review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were provided with a clean, safe, homelike environment. This was true for all 74 residents who resided in the facility whose equipment and environment were observed. This deficient practice created the potential for harm if: a) residents were embarrassed by and/or felt the disrepair in the facility was unacceptable, disrespectful, or undignified and b) residents were injured due to unsafe areas in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents' Minimum Data Set (MDS) had correct assessment information. This was true for 3 of 5 residents (#27, #41, and #52) whose records were reviewed for accuracy. This deficient practice had the potential for negative outcomes if residents were not assessed and/or monitored due to inaccurate assessments.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, policy review, record review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to develop and implement comprehensive person-centered care plans. This was true for 4 of 18 residents (#33, #34, #220, and #226) whose care plans were reviewed. These failures placed residents at risk of negative outcomes if services were not provided or provided incorrectly due to lack of information in their care plans.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, policy review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure resident's care plans were revised to reflect current needs and interventions. This was true for 3 of 74 residents (#1, #33, and #226) whose care plans were reviewed. This placed residents at risk of adverse outcomes if care and services were not provided due to care plans not being revised as resident's needs changed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and resident and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure resident meals were palatable and maintained correct temperatures. This failed practice affected 3 residents (#15, #45, and #226) and had the potential to negatively affect all residents' nutritional status and psychosocial well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, policy review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure infection control prevention practices were maintained to provide a safe and sanitary environment. These failures had the potential to impact all residents in the facility by placing them at risk for cross contamination and infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to provide the Advance Beneficiary Notice (CMS-10055 form) for 2 of 2 residents (#60 and #62) and Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) (CMS- 10123 form) for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #232) reviewed for beneficiary protection notification. This deficient practice had the potential to cause financial harm or distress for residents when they were not informed of their potential liability for payment when their Medicare Part A benefits ended.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, and policy review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure resident's privacy was maintained during cares, treatment information was protected, and residents had unrestricted access to review mail in a timely manner. This was true for 1 of 4 medication carts, 1 of 18 residents (Resident #53) reviewed for privacy and confidentiality, and all residents who receive mail at the facility. This deficient practice placed residents at risk of embarrassment, loss of control over their personal information, diminished quality of life, and psychosocial distress.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure resident's hospital discharge instructions were reviewed upon readmission to the facility to assure physician orders were in place to meet their medical needs. This was true for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #53) whose records were reviewed. This failure placed Resident #53 at risk of delayed care and assessments for a foley catheter.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were given the appropriate treatment and services to maintain or improve ability to carry out activities of daily living. This was true for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for restorative nursing services. This failure placed residents at risk for decreased range of motion, functional ability, and decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined the facility failed to notify the physician with resident's significant weight loss. This was true for 3 out of 18 residents (#34, #59 and #62) whose medical records were reviewed. This deficient practice had the potential to cause cognitive and functional decline.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interview and review of employee personal files, it was determined the facility failed to provide a minimum of 12 hours of in-service education per year for 1 of 2 CNAs (CNA #1), failed to ensure each CNA's performance was evaluated at least once every 12 months and annual evaluations were performed for 2 of 2 CNAs (CNA #1 and #4) whose personnel records were reviewed for sufficient and competent staffing. This failure created the potential for incompetent CNAs providing care and increased the risk for harm for all residents living in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure nurse staffing information was accurate and posted daily for each shift. This failed practice had the potential to affect all residents residing in the facility and their representatives, visitors, and others who wanted to review the facility's staffing levels.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the medical necessity for psychotropic medication administration. This was true for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #40) reviewed for psychotropic medication administration. This failure created the potential for negative side effects related to receiving psychotropic medications that are not necessary.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, policy review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure medications available for residents were stored appropriately and properly labeled; this was true for 3 of 74 residents (#1, #50, and #223) rooms inspected and 1 of 4 medication carts observed. This failure created the potential for adverse effects if residents self-administered medications inappropriately or receive the wrong medication due to improper labeling.
Inspectors wroteBased on records review and interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure resident food intolerances and preferences were accommodated. This was true for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #229). This had the potential for adverse health effects and possible harm to residents with food intolerances or allergies.
Inspectors wroteBased on policy review, record review, and resident and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure a resident had a quarterly interdisciplinary care plan review that included participation of the physician or non-physician practitioner, a registered nurse, a nurse aide, or a member of the food and nutrition staff. This was true for 1 of 15 residents (Resident #17) whose care plans were reviewed. This deficient practice placed residents at risk for adverse outcomes if care and services were not provided appropriately due to a lack of information in the care plan.
11 fire safety citations on file: 2 on March 6, 2026, 9 on August 4, 2022.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| December 20, 2024 | Fine | $25,604 |
| December 11, 2023 | Fine | $10,586 |
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) | 3.78 | 4.04 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 1.31 | 0.86 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.14 | 3.49 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.03 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.45 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 60.8% | 50.3% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 54.2% | 40.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.86 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 4.04 on weekdays and 3.14 on weekends, 22% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.3% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.90 in April to June 2025 to 3.78 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 | 3.78 | 1.31 | 4.04 | 3.14 | 0.3% | 0 of 90 | 70 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.77 | 1.26 | 4.03 | 3.12 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 70 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.76 | 1.16 | 4.04 | 3.04 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 72 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.90 | 1.28 | 4.17 | 3.22 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 66 |
| 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 | 25.1 | 15.6 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 1.2 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.6 | 2.0 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.4 | 1.8 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 19.9 | 16.1 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 7.0 | 3.2 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 8.7 | 20.1 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 19.7 | 17.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 10.9 | 12.3 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.8 | 1.2 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.8 | 1.7 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Teton Healthcare of Cascadia's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (49.9% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
49.9% 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. 192 eligible stays.
10.3% 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. 187 eligible stays.
8.8% 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. 126 eligible stays.
56.4% 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. 94 residents counted.
1.5% 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. 131 residents counted.
3.0% 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. 131 residents counted.
100.0% this home
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. 45 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: IDAHO FALLS OF CASCADIA LLC. CMS links this home to Cascadia Healthcare, a group of 47 nursing homes averaging 3.1 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cascadia Idaho Operations LLC | Direct ownership interest | Organization | 02/01/2022 | |
| Cascadia Hc Group LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 06/05/2025 | |
| Cascadia Healthcare LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 02/01/2022 | |
| Cascadia Holdco LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 06/05/2025 | |
| Hammond, Owen | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 02/01/2022 | |
| Laforte, Stephen | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 06/05/2025 | |
| Nelson, Timothy | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 06/05/2025 | |
| Timberline Ohi Tenant LLC | 5% or greater security interest | Organization | 06/05/2025 | |
| White Oak Healthcare Finance LLC | 5% or greater security interest | Organization | 08/11/2022 | |
| Cascadia Hc Group LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 06/05/2025 | |
| Cascadia Healthcare LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 02/01/2022 | |
| Cascadia Holdco LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 06/05/2025 | |
| Cascadia Idaho Operations LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 02/01/2022 | |
| Cascadia Services LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 01/23/2025 | |
| Hammond, James | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/01/2024 | |
| Hammond, Owen | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/01/2022 | |
| Laforte, Stephen | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 06/05/2025 | |
| Nelson, Timothy | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 06/05/2025 | |
| Thomson, James | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/16/2023 | |
| Cascadia Services LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/23/2025 | |
| Timberline Ohi Tenant LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 06/05/2025 | |
| Hammond, James | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/26/2025 | |
| Thomson, James | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/26/2025 |
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 Idaho. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.