Citations in Oregon
Statistics, citations and compliance trends for long-term care facilities in Oregon.
Statistics for Oregon (Last 12 Months)
Financial Impact (Last 12 Months)
Latest citations in Oregon
A resident with mild cognitive impairment, poor safety awareness, and diabetic neuropathy, which reduced sensation in the feet, was known to slide out of bed at night. The bed was positioned too close to a baseboard heater, and the resident rolled out of bed and placed a foot directly on the heater. A CNA later found the resident on the floor with the foot on the heater, and assessment documented multiple small second-degree burns with blisters on the left foot and toes caused by direct contact with the heater.
The facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program, resulting in an ongoing roach infestation documented over several months. The contracted pest control provider serviced the building only once per month and reported continued evidence of roaches, while indicating that more frequent applications were needed. The Administrator acknowledged persistent roach problems throughout the facility, and several CNAs reported seeing roaches, with some noting that sightings were not consistently documented and one CNA unaware of the pest control log. This lack of consistent reporting and insufficient pest control measures placed residents at risk for exposure to household pests and increased health risks.
The facility failed to maintain a clean and homelike environment when a cognitively intact resident with anxiety reported that their room had not been cleaned for several days, and surveyors observed dirty floors, debris, dark stains in the toilet bowl, and a urine odor in the bathroom. The shared bathroom and multiple shower rooms were also found with dark substances on toilet surfaces, unclean baseboards, and unkept conditions. Only one housekeeping staff member, the Director of Housekeeping, was working at the time of the survey, and leadership acknowledged an expectation that resident areas be clean.
A resident with diabetes and a history of lower extremity wounds had orders and care plans for weekly diabetic foot checks, weekly head‑to‑toe skin inspections, and daily foot monitoring, yet staff documented completed assessments with no issues while the resident’s legs and feet were not actually visualized, refusals were not consistently documented, and the provider was not notified despite the resident later being observed with dirty, adherent socks, a malodorous, raw‑appearing ankle area, and a blood‑tinged bandage stuck to the skin. Another resident with diabetes on hemodialysis had multiple scheduled and sliding‑scale insulin aspart doses administered significantly later than ordered, with no progress notes explaining the delays, while the resident and an RN reported that nighttime insulin was often late. A third resident admitted with anxiety and panic disorder had ordered lorazepam not available on the night of admission due to the prescription not being sent to the pharmacy, was unable to receive a dose from the backup supply because of a dose mismatch, and did not receive scheduled doses the following day, with no documented follow‑up by nursing on the cause or status of the delayed medication.
The facility failed to provide ordered PT, OT, and SLP services and to complete timely therapy evaluations for several residents. One resident with a stroke and fall history was ordered PT, OT, and SLP; PT was delivered less frequently than prescribed, SLP treatments were not documented after being ordered, and OT evaluation occurred weeks late with only limited OT sessions provided. Another resident with diabetes and protein-calorie malnutrition was discharged from the hospital with a mechanical soft diet and SLP orders but did not receive an SLP assessment for over two weeks and remained on modified textures until then. A third resident with muscle weakness had an OT order but did not receive an OT evaluation for more than two months and reported never receiving OT, which was corroborated by multiple CNAs and an RN. A fourth resident with an anoxic brain injury and femur fracture had an orthopedic PT order that was never acknowledged or communicated to therapy, and no PT was provided. Staff, including the Administrator and rehab leadership, confirmed these lapses and delays in therapy services and evaluations.
A resident admitted with spinal stenosis, chronic back pain, anxiety, panic disorder, and opioid dependence had a PRN hydrocodone-acetaminophen order entered on admission, but the medication was not available for use until the early morning of the next day. The admitting LPN reportedly told the resident and a complainant that the pain medication would arrive within a few hours, yet the prescription was not sent to the pharmacy, and there was no documentation of follow-up or explanation for the delay. During the night, the resident repeatedly requested pain medication, reported significant pain to a CNA and to a complainant by phone, and an RN later confirmed the drug was unavailable until a new prescription and access to backup stock were obtained.
Resident Burn from Contact with Baseboard Heater Due to Inadequate Hazard Prevention
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure a resident was protected from accident hazards related to a baseboard heater, resulting in second-degree burns. The resident had diagnoses including stroke and diabetic neuropathy, a condition causing numbness in the hands and feet, and was care planned for impaired cognition and poor safety awareness, including sliding out of bed at night and fidgeting with items on the walls. The resident’s MDS showed mild cognitive impairment with a BIMS score of 13/15. Despite these known risks, the resident’s bed was positioned too close to a baseboard heater in the room. On the night of the incident, the resident rolled out of bed and placed their left foot on the baseboard heater. A CNA found the resident lying on the floor, whimpering, with the left foot resting on the heater. Due to the resident’s diabetic neuropathy, staff reported the resident would not have been aware of the injury as it was occurring. The CNA removed the resident’s foot from the heater and notified the charge nurse. Subsequent assessment and a Skin and Wound Assessment documented second-degree burns with multiple small blisters on the left foot and toes, each approximately 0.2 cm in length and width. The administrator and RN case manager acknowledged that the burns were caused by direct contact with the baseboard heater after the resident rolled out of bed.
Failure to Maintain Effective Pest Control for Ongoing Roach Infestation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program, as evidenced by ongoing roach activity documented over several months and corroborated by staff and the contracted pest control provider. On 4/22/26, the contracted pest control technician (Witness 9) was observed placing roach traps and reported that, per contract, he only serviced the facility once per month. He stated he had seen evidence of roaches for months, though not rodents, and indicated that the facility really needed pest control services twice per month to eradicate the roaches. Review of the Pest Control Log on 4/22/26 showed roach sightings reported from 10/2025 through 4/2026. The Administrator (Staff 1) acknowledged ongoing roach concerns throughout the facility and stated he had asked the pest control provider during past and recent monthly visits for more frequent service to control pests, especially roaches. Multiple CNAs (Staff 43, Staff 44, and Staff 27) reported seeing roaches in the facility, with Staff 43 and Staff 44 stating that sightings were not always written or reported in the Pest Control Log, and Staff 27 stating she was unaware of the Pest Control Log for reporting pest sightings. On 4/27/26, the Administrator confirmed the ongoing roach issue and stated he expected the facility to be pest free. This deficiency placed residents at risk for exposure to household pests and increased health risks, as the facility did not ensure that pest sightings were consistently documented or that pest control services were provided at a frequency sufficient to address the persistent roach problem.
Failure to Maintain Clean and Homelike Resident Rooms and Bathrooms
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment when resident rooms, shared bathrooms, and shower rooms were observed to be unclean and poorly maintained. Resident 41, admitted in 2025 with diagnoses including anxiety and assessed as cognitively intact on a 1/28/26 Quarterly MDS, reported that the room was not cleaned regularly and had not been cleaned since 4/17/26, attributing this to the facility often being short staffed. On 4/19/26, surveyors observed that the floor in the resident’s room appeared unwashed with dark spots around the toilet and throughout the bathroom, and later that day the room had a dirty floor with debris, dark stains in the toilet bowl, and a bathroom that smelled of urine. The shared bathroom for the room was also observed with dark stains in the toilet bowl. On 4/19/26, Staff 19, the Director of Housekeeping, was observed to be the only housekeeping staff working in the facility and confirmed he was the only person working in housekeeping when the survey team entered. During a subsequent facility walkthrough on 4/24/26 with Staff 19 and Staff 20, the Regional Director of Housekeeping, they confirmed the presence of a dark substance on the toilet seat, handle, and tank in the shared bathroom, as well as unclean floor baseboards in the room. They also confirmed that resident shower rooms on all three halls appeared unclean and unkept, with items left in the rooms. The Administrator later acknowledged during a walkthrough that he expected residents’ rooms and areas to be clean.
Failure to Monitor Skin, Administer Insulin Timely, and Provide Ordered Anxiolytic Medication
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves failures to provide treatment and care according to physician orders and residents’ needs in the areas of skin monitoring, insulin administration, and psychotropic medication management for three residents. For one resident with diabetes and a history of bilateral lower extremity and right foot wounds, the wound care provider documented that all wounds had healed and recommended ongoing monitoring for reopening or new wounds. The resident’s care plans and physician orders required weekly diabetic foot checks, weekly head‑to‑toe skin inspections, daily inspection of the feet during ADLs, and notification of the provider and resident care manager of any new skin issues or refusals. Documentation on the TAR showed that weekly diabetic foot checks and skin inspections were marked as completed with no issues, and a quarterly nursing evaluation indicated no skin integrity concerns, despite the resident’s documented routine refusals of care. During observation, the resident was found wearing pants, thick socks, and heavy boots, and reported having trouble with socks and leg pain for a couple of months. When the resident pulled up a pant leg, the surveyor observed a dark red sock covered in flaked skin, bright red and raw‑appearing skin with a large indent at the ankle, a malodorous odor, and a dirty, blood‑tinged bandage stuck to the skin under the sock. The resident’s socks appeared dirty and covered in flaked skin, and the resident’s speech was disorganized. Staff interviews revealed that some nurses did not complete skin checks, a CNA had never visualized this resident’s legs or feet due to refusals to shower or remove shoes, and the LPN who documented a head‑to‑toe skin inspection stated she had never actually completed one for this resident and did not recall the documented assessment. Another LPN stated she had never assessed the resident’s feet and that her TAR entries reflected refusals, but she had not notified the provider. The resident care manager and DNS acknowledged uncertainty about when to notify the provider and confirmed the provider had not been notified of repeated refusals of skin inspections or diabetic foot checks. For a second resident with diabetes requiring hemodialysis, physician orders required scheduled insulin aspart doses with meals and additional sliding‑scale insulin before meals and at bedtime at specific times. Review of the diabetic administration record showed multiple instances where both scheduled and sliding‑scale insulin doses were administered significantly later than the ordered times, with no documentation in the clinical record explaining the delays. The resident reported that insulin was often not administered timely, especially at bedtime, and described being a brittle diabetic for whom timely insulin was very important. An RN confirmed that the resident’s blood sugars dropped quickly and that the resident had reported late nighttime insulin administration, and stated that night shift nurses could become busy and unable to give insulin on time. The resident care manager confirmed the late administrations, stated that nurses were required to write progress notes when insulin was given late, and acknowledged that no such notes were present for the identified dates. For a third resident admitted with spinal stenosis, anxiety disorder, panic disorder, and opioid dependence, admission orders included lorazepam 1 mg tablets scheduled twice daily and an additional PRN evening dose for generalized anxiety disorder. The MAR showed that the scheduled lorazepam doses were not administered at the ordered morning and midday times on the day after admission, and that the PRN evening dose was instead administered in the morning, contrary to the order. The admitting LPN did not recall the resident or any issues with lorazepam delivery and had no documentation clarifying whether or when the prescription was sent to the pharmacy. The complainant reported that the admitting nurse had told the resident the lorazepam would arrive within a few hours, but the resident later called in distress stating the medication was not available; when the complainant contacted the facility, they were told the prescription had not been sent to the pharmacy. A CNA stated the resident was agitated the night of admission, requested anti‑anxiety medication several times, and called the complainant twice about not receiving medication. The night RN confirmed the resident appeared agitated, that the lorazepam order had not been sent to the pharmacy, that the medication was not available, and that a pull from the backup supply was denied due to a dose mismatch, resulting in the resident not receiving lorazepam the night of admission or the scheduled doses the following day, with no documented follow‑up on the delay in the medical record.
Failure to Provide Ordered PT, OT, and SLP Services and Timely Evaluations
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide specialized rehabilitative services as ordered for multiple residents. One resident admitted with a stroke and history of falls had physician orders for PT, OT, and SLP evaluations and treatments as indicated. PT assessed this resident for therapy five times per week for a defined certification period, but documentation showed PT was only provided four times per week during several weeks. SLP initially did not recommend services, but after a subsequent assessment on 1/19/26, the resident was ordered SLP twice weekly for 60 days, with no documentation of any SLP treatments after that date. OT did not evaluate this resident until 42 days after admission, and although OT determined a need for services five days per week for 60 days, the resident received OT on only a limited number of dates before discharge. The Administrator confirmed that therapy services were not provided as prescribed and that evaluations were not completed within the expected timeframe. Another resident, with diagnoses including diabetes and mild protein-calorie malnutrition, was transferred from the hospital with orders for a mechanical soft diet and SLP evaluation and treatment. The SLP assessment did not occur until 17 days after readmission, during which time the resident continued on mechanical soft diet textures. The resident reported it took about a month to get off puree foods and stated they were told the facility needed to hire more SLP staff before an assessment could be completed. The Regional Director of Rehabilitation and the Administrator both confirmed the delay in SLP assessment and were unable to explain why the evaluation was not completed sooner, despite existing orders for SLP evaluation and treatment. A third resident admitted with muscle weakness had physician orders dated 2/12/26 for OT evaluation and treatment, but the OT evaluation was not completed until 4/20/26. The admission MDS indicated the resident had not received any therapy services in the seven days prior to that assessment. The resident stated they had not received OT and were interested in therapy to help them leave the facility. Multiple CNAs and an RN reported they had never observed this resident working with therapy since admission. The Rehabilitation Director acknowledged the OT evaluation was not timely and cited difficulty maintaining Certified Occupational Therapy Assistants. In a fourth case, another resident with anoxic brain injury and a right femur fracture had an orthopedic order for PT, but the clinical record contained no evidence that the PT order was acknowledged, clarified, or communicated to the therapy department, and the resident did not receive PT. An RN case manager stated the order must have been missed and confirmed that therapy was not provided.
Failure to Ensure Timely Availability of Ordered PRN Opioid for New Admission
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide timely and appropriate pain management for a cognitively intact resident admitted with spinal stenosis, dorsalgia, anxiety disorder, panic disorder, and opioid dependence. On admission, the resident had an order for hydrocodone-acetaminophen 10 mg-325 mg every four hours as needed for pain, entered on the Medication Administration Record on the day of admission. However, the first documented administration of this medication did not occur until the early morning of the following day. During this period, the ordered hydrocodone-acetaminophen was not available in the facility because the prescription had not been sent to the pharmacy, and there was no documentation by the admitting nurse explaining the delay or any follow-up on obtaining the medication. According to interviews, the admitting nurse reportedly told the resident and a complainant that the hydrocodone-acetaminophen would arrive within a few hours of admission, but by late that night the resident was calling the complainant in distress, reporting pain and lack of access to the medication. A CNA stated the resident was in pain, agitated, and repeatedly requested pain medication, and that these requests were reported to the nurse. An RN on the night shift confirmed receiving a call from the complainant about the resident’s pain and discovered that the prescription had not been sent to the pharmacy, prompting a request to the on-call provider and use of the backup supply before the first dose was finally administered. Resident care managers later stated that, given the resident’s condition and admission from home without a hard copy prescription, the admitting nurse should have obtained a STAT prescription and documented diligent follow-up, but the record contained no such documentation and the medication was not readily available when requested.
Find your facility
Search by name to see its inspection history, citations and penalties — and how to prepare for the next survey.
Get alerted when Immediate Jeopardy citations hit in Oregon — free
You're all set
Compliance trends in Oregon
Data through Mar 2026Comparisons below measure the most recent period Apr 2025 – Mar 2026 against the prior period Apr 2024 – Mar 2025 (two equal 12-month windows). The most recent 1 months are excluded because CMS is still publishing them.
Top tags by month · last 24 months
dashed = still reportingMonthly citation counts for the 5 most-cited tags. The dashed tail is the 1-month reporting lag.
Frequency movers
Biggest change in how often each tag is cited, as a rate per 100 inspections (so it isn't skewed by survey volume): Apr 2025 – Mar 2026 vs the prior period Apr 2024 – Mar 2025. Only tags with at least 20 citations in both periods are shown.
Severity movers
Tags whose average scope/severity shifted the most: Apr 2025 – Mar 2026 vs the prior period Apr 2024 – Mar 2025. The number is the average severity on the A–L scale (A=0…L=11); the letter is the band it falls in. A rise means the same tag is being cited at a more serious level — note the average can move enough to rank here while staying within the same letter. Same 20-citation minimum applies.
Care domain movers
Citations grouped into CFR care domains — F-tags by their §483 regulatory section (CMS State Operations Manual, Appendix PP) — measured as a rate per 100 inspections: Apr 2025 – Mar 2026 vs the prior period Apr 2024 – Mar 2025. Share is the domain's portion of citations this period; avg severity is the mean scope/severity letter and immediate jeopardy the percentage cited at J–L, both over the current period. Domains with at least 20 citations in both periods are shown; the sparkline tracks the last 12 months (left = oldest).
Immediate jeopardies · this period
Citations at the most serious scope/severity — J–L, immediate jeopardy, residents placed at risk of serious harm or death — over Apr 2025 – Mar 2026 vs the prior period Apr 2024 – Mar 2025. "Surveys with an IJ" counts distinct health inspections that had at least one.
Survey activity · by month
faded/dashed = still reportingCitations each month split into complaint-driven (unscheduled, triggered by grievances) vs standard surveys — bars, left axis — with the number of inspections as a line on the right axis. Rising inspections signal more scrutiny; a rising complaint share means more off-cycle surveys. The most recent 1 months are still being reported.
Deficiency-free survey rate
Share of health surveys that found zero deficiencies — the odds of a clean survey. Apr 2025 – Mar 2026 vs the prior period Apr 2024 – Mar 2025; the most recent 1 months are still being reported (dashed).
Penalties · by month
faded = still reportingTotal civil money penalty dollars imposed on the state's facilities each month — how hard the state is enforcing. The most recent 1 months are still being reported, and penalties often lag citations by several months.
Emerging tags
Tags that weren't established last period but surged — an early warning, distinct from movers (which track already-common tags). Criteria: fewer than 20 citations in the prior period, but at least 10 this period and 2.5× their prior volume. The sparkline shows monthly counts over the last 12 months (left = oldest).
Trusted data from CMS and state health departments
Every citation, penalty and Plan of Correction is sourced from public CMS records (latest release August 26, 2026) and official state health department websites — never guesswork.
Some of the Latest Corrective Actions taken by Facilities in Oregon
- Re-educated the Administrator, DNS, and nursing staff on the code blue process, including how to locate resident code status in PCC and the POLST on file and the importance of following individual resident care plans and orders (J - F0678 - OR)
- Cross-referenced resident code status across PCC orders, the POLST binder, the care plan, and the resident dashboard to ensure consistent identification of code status preferences (J - F0678 - OR)
- Established DNS/designee monitoring of code status preferences for new and returning admissions (including post-hospitalization returns) to ensure preferences were identified and followed (J - F0678 - OR)
- Implemented DNS/designee audits of code status for all new admissions and hospital/ED readmissions and shared results with the QAPI committee to maintain substantial compliance (J - F0678 - OR)
- Conducted mock codes to reinforce staff response to code situations (J - F0678 - OR)
Failure to Initiate CPR for a Full Code Resident
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide CPR in accordance with a resident’s documented full code status. The facility’s Emergency Procedure CPR policy, initiated in 2001, required staff trained in CPR to initiate resuscitation on unresponsive residents who were not breathing unless there was a valid DNR order or clear signs of irreversible death such as rigor mortis. The policy further specified that if a resident’s DNR status was unclear, CPR should be started and continued until a DNR was confirmed. Resident 3 had been admitted with diagnoses including acute respiratory failure and heart failure and had a care plan and POLST on file indicating Full Code/Attempt Resuscitation and Full Treatment, including use of intubation, advanced airway interventions, mechanical ventilation, and transfer to hospital or ICU if indicated. On the night of the incident, a CNA (Staff 5) documented last vital signs for the resident at approximately 10:45 PM, with oxygen saturation of 92% on one liter of oxygen. At 2:00 AM, the resident was observed sleeping, breathing, and with a dry brief. Around 4:00 AM, Staff 5 and another CNA (Staff 8) entered the resident’s room and observed that the resident was not breathing, had yellow skin color, was cool to the touch, and had no palpable pulse. Both CNAs concluded the resident was deceased and went to notify the LPN (Staff 4) instead of initiating CPR or calling a code blue, despite having recent CPR training and later stating that, in retrospect, they would have started CPR and called for a code blue. When Staff 4 (LPN) entered the room, she assessed the resident and found no pulse, blood pressure, or respirations, noted the body was cold, with some mottling on the lower legs, pale/yellowish skin color, and no rigor mortis. Staff 4 did not initiate a code blue or CPR and instead contacted the DNS (Staff 2) and the physician, and then called 911 to obtain the coroner’s phone number. No lifesaving measures were attempted by any staff, despite the resident’s documented full code status and the facility policy requiring CPR in the absence of a valid DNR or signs of irreversible death. The DNS later stated she expected staff to call a code blue immediately, start CPR, call 911, and verify the resident’s code status. Surveyors determined that the facility failed to provide CPR according to the resident’s code status, placing all residents with full code status at risk and constituting substandard quality of care, with the noncompliance cited as Immediate Jeopardy and Past Noncompliance.
Removal Plan
- Administrator, DNS and nursing staff would be re-educated on the code blue process, how to locate a resident's code status in PCC and the POLST on file, and the importance of following individual resident care plans and orders.
- Resident code status would be cross-referenced with the PCC order, POLST scanned in binder, care plan, and resident dashboard.
- DNS or designee would monitor resident code status preferences for new admissions/returning admissions from hospitalizations.
- DNS or designee would audit code status for all new admissions and readmissions from hospitalization or ED visits, and share audit results with the QAPI committee to ensure substantial compliance is maintained.
- DNS or designee would complete a mock code.
- DNS or designee would complete mock codes.
Failure to Investigate Multiple Allegations of Sexual Abuse
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to investigate multiple allegations of sexual abuse involving three residents. Resident 102, who had cognitive loss equivalent to a young child, legal blindness, and was non-verbal, was reportedly found with a ripped brief, crying, and resisting a brief change. Staff reported concerns that another resident, Resident 105, had performed or attempted to perform sexual acts on Resident 102. Staff members, including CNAs and social services, stated they informed facility management, including the Administrator and DNS, about the torn brief, Resident 102’s distress, and concerns that Resident 105 was being sexually inappropriate with multiple residents. Despite these reports and discussions in morning meetings, the Administrator acknowledged that no investigation was completed, believing the incident was based on staff assumptions. The facility also failed to investigate allegations involving Resident 103, who had Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease. Staff reported that Resident 105 attempted to take Resident 103 into a shower room to perform sexual acts, and that a staff member intervened. The complainant later spoke with Resident 103, who stated that Resident 105 was “sick” and made bad comments. Other staff reported to human resources, the DNS, and the Administrator that Resident 105 attempted to take a resident into a shower room to unclothe the resident, and that Resident 105 attempted to video Resident 103, expressed a desire to kiss Resident 103, and get the resident into a shower room. The Social Service Director confirmed she reported these concerns to the Administrator, who stated he was aware of the incident but that no investigation was completed. A third failure to investigate involved Resident 108, who had Huntington’s disease and dementia. A staff member reported observing Resident 105 telling Resident 108 to take off their shirt and gesturing for them to do so, and stated they completed a written statement and gave it to the unit manager. Another CNA reported hearing that Resident 105 and other residents were laughing and encouraging Resident 108 to remove their top, and also reported observing Resident 105 rubbing other residents’ backs more physically than appropriate. Social services reported being told that Resident 108 was removing their top while Resident 105 was in the dining room with a phone, and that Resident 105 admitted to the behavior but described it as innocent. The Administrator stated he was aware of Resident 108 removing their shirt while Resident 105 was present, yet confirmed that no investigation was completed for this incident. These failures to investigate led surveyors to determine that the facility did not respond appropriately to alleged violations of sexual abuse for the three residents.
Removal Plan
- Residents 102, 103, and 108 received head-to-toe skin assessments completed by RCMs with no observed findings.
- Resident 105 was placed on one-to-one observations pending investigations.
- Staff 1 (Administrator) and Staff 2 (DNS) were re-educated on the facility's abuse policy, reporting, and thorough investigations.
- Social Services will interview all interviewable residents regarding abuse.
- Nurses will complete a head-to-toe assessment on all non-interviewable residents.
- All staff, including agency staff, will be re-educated on the facility's abuse policy and reporting.
In your survey window? See what surveyors are citing.
The Survey-Prep Report maps your facility's risk from 12 months of CMS and state citation data — what's being cited around you and what to check first. $129 one-time.
