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
An LPN was observed cleaning a community-use glucometer with an alcohol pad instead of the bleach wipe or equivalent required by the facility policy. The LPN stated he always used alcohol pads, while the DNS stated staff were to use bleach wipes. The glucometer was used for CBG checks on several residents with diabetes, and their records did not indicate a BBP.
Furniture Not Kept in Good Repair: Armchairs in multiple resident rooms and chairs in the front sitting area were observed with torn or cracked upholstery exposing cloth material. The Maintenance Director stated the furniture was not in good repair and had not been notified of the damage, while the Administrator stated staff were to remove furniture with tears.
Failure to assist a resident with oral hygiene. A cognitively intact resident admitted with a fracture required ADL assistance, including oral hygiene, per MDS and care plan. The resident stated staff did not provide a toothbrush or offer help brushing teeth, and the toothbrush was later found still in its original wrapper by the sink. The assigned CNA confirmed oral care was not provided, and the DNS stated residents should be offered oral care twice daily.
Failure to provide activity accommodations for a resident with highly impaired hearing. A cognitively intact resident with a fracture preferred watching older TV shows but stated he/she could not hear the television when wanting to watch it. Staff observed the resident in bed with the TV off on multiple occasions, and staff reported that headsets were used for hard-of-hearing residents, but one was not offered to this resident.
Missing Order for CPAP Use and Maintenance: A resident with sleep apnea and stroke had a CPAP in the room, but there was no physician order or care plan documentation for its use or maintenance. Staff knew the resident had the CPAP, yet CNAs and an RN reported they did not routinely clean the mask or tubing, and the LPN Resident Care Manager confirmed no order existed for the CPAP or its care.
A resident with Parkinson's disease, cognitive communication deficit, and dementia had a scheduled Sinemet order with specific administration times, but the MAR showed the times were changed by the DNS to simplify the CMA workflow without a documented provider order or resident discussion. Staff later stated a physician order was required for the change, and the resident's family was upset with the altered med times.
Improper Cleaning of Community-Use Glucometer
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a community-use glucometer was cleaned with an EPA-approved disinfectant for 1 of 4 halls reviewed for infection control, specifically Hall 2. The facility’s 10/2025 glucometer cleaning policy stated staff were to clean glucometers with a bleach germicidal wipe or equivalent, but on 7/7/26 at 7:46 AM an LPN was observed cleaning a community-used glucometer with an alcohol pad and stated he always used alcohol pads to clean the glucometers. The LPN identified residents on Hall 2 who had CBG checks as Residents 7, 13, 63, 68, 71, and 99. Each of these residents had diabetes, and their clinical records did not indicate they had a BBP. At 8:38 AM, the DNS stated staff were to use bleach wipes to clean the community-use glucometers.
Furniture Not Kept in Good Repair
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure furniture was in good repair for 1 of 1 facility reviewed for physical environment. During an observation with the Maintenance Director, armchairs in rooms 10, 16, 18, 42, and 44 were observed with torn fabric on the armrests and exposed cloth material, with the torn areas measuring at least one inch in diameter. In the general sitting area by the front entrance, two chairs had multiple cracks in the synthetic leather on the seat covering exposing cloth material, and one armchair had missing synthetic leather exposing cloth material. The Maintenance Director stated the furniture was not in good repair, Staff 18 stated staff were to notify maintenance when furniture was ripped, and the Maintenance Director stated he had not been notified of the torn furniture. The Administrator stated that if there were tears in the furniture, staff were to remove the furniture.
Failure to Assist Resident With Oral Hygiene
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a resident was assisted with oral hygiene for 1 of 2 sampled residents reviewed for ADLs. Resident 81 was admitted in 6/2026 with a diagnosis of a fracture, and the 6/29/26 admission MDS indicated the resident was cognitively intact and required assistance with ADLs including oral hygiene. The 6/25/26 care plan stated the resident required the assistance of one person for personal hygiene and mobility. During interview on 7/6/26, Resident 81 stated that since admission staff had not provided a toothbrush for oral care or offered assistance with oral hygiene. On 7/7/26, the resident’s toothbrush was observed still in its original plastic wrapper in a basin by the sink, and the resident stated that although a bed bath had been provided, no one had offered to help brush teeth. Staff 8, the assigned CNA for day shift, stated the toothbrush was by the sink but she did not assist the resident with oral care during the morning shift. Staff 2, the DNS, stated residents were to be offered oral care at least two times a day, in the morning and in the evening.
Failure to Provide TV Accommodations for a Hard-of-Hearing Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a resident was provided accommodations for activities for 1 of 1 sampled resident reviewed for activities. Resident 81 was admitted in 6/2026 with a diagnosis of fracture. The 6/29/26 admission MDS indicated the resident was cognitively intact and had highly impaired hearing. The resident was assessed as not using hearing aids, and the 6/29/26 Activity Profile noted a preference for watching older television shows. The resident’s 6/25/26 through 7/7/26 Self Directed Activity form showed the resident watched television on 7/2/26. However, during observations on 7/7/26 at 10:38 AM, 1:42 PM, and 3:37 PM, and on 7/8/26 at 8:13 AM and 11:32 AM, the resident was observed in bed with eyes shut and the television was not on. On 7/6/26 at 2:16 PM, the resident stated he/she could not hear the television when wanting to watch it. Staff stated that hard-of-hearing residents who wanted to listen to television were asked to have a headset brought in by family, that the resident was very hard of hearing and staff had to stand close to the right ear to communicate, and that the activity director did not offer a headset. The DNS stated the facility should have provided headsets for residents who could not hear the television.
Missing Order for CPAP Use and Maintenance
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to obtain physician orders for the use and maintenance of a CPAP for Resident 76, who was admitted in 6/2026 with diagnoses including sleep apnea and stroke. There was no documentation in the admission MDS or care plan showing that the resident used a CPAP. Observations from 7/6/26 through 7/10/26 showed the CPAP in the resident’s room on the nightstand. The resident stated that a friend brought the CPAP to the facility a day after admission, but staff did not clean the mask or tubing daily and the mask did not fit well. Staff interviews showed the CNA staff were aware of the CPAP but did not clean the mask or hose, one CNA reported washing the mask one time, and an RN stated she filled the chamber with water a few times but did not clean the mask or tubing. The LPN Resident Care Manager confirmed the resident did not have an order for the CPAP or for cleaning and caring for the equipment.
Unapproved Change to Sinemet Administration Times
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement physician orders for one resident with Parkinson's disease, cognitive communication deficit, and dementia. The resident was admitted with an order for carbidopa-levodopa (Sinemet) to be given four times daily at 8:00 AM, 12:00 PM, 4:00 PM, and 8:00 PM. The resident's MAR showed that from 4/11/26 to 4/14/26, the administration times were changed to 7:00 AM, 11:00 AM, 4:00 PM, and 7:00 PM, and there was no documented evidence that the change had been ordered by the provider or discussed with the resident. An Order Audit Report showed the altered administration times were implemented by Staff 2, the DNS, and later changed back to the original times. Staff 6 stated Sinemet must be given at consistent times daily or breakthrough tremors could occur, and Staff 8 and Staff 10 stated a physician order was required to change medication administration times when specific times were ordered. Staff 11 stated the times were adjusted by Staff 2 to simplify the CMA's workflow and that a physician order and discussion with the resident should have occurred, but no evidence of either could be found. Staff 2 stated a new physician order was required to change the times and could not recall whether the change was discussed with the resident.
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 Jun 2026Comparisons below measure the most recent period Jul 2025 – Jun 2026 against the prior period Jul 2024 – Jun 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): Jul 2025 – Jun 2026 vs the prior period Jul 2024 – Jun 2025. Only tags with at least 20 citations in both periods are shown.
Severity movers
Tags whose average scope/severity shifted the most: Jul 2025 – Jun 2026 vs the prior period Jul 2024 – Jun 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: Jul 2025 – Jun 2026 vs the prior period Jul 2024 – Jun 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 Jul 2025 – Jun 2026 vs the prior period Jul 2024 – Jun 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. Jul 2025 – Jun 2026 vs the prior period Jul 2024 – Jun 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.
