Washington ›Vancouver

Avamere Rehabilitation of Cascade Park

Costs & paymentPlan a visit

801 Southeast Park Crest Avenue, Vancouver, WA 98683 (opens Google Maps) · Clark County · (360) 260-2200· 88 certified beds · avg 82 residents/day · certified since Sep 1, 1991 · Medicare and Medicaid certified

Certified for both programmes. Certification means the facility can bill Medicaid — it does not mean a Medicaid-funded bed is free right now, so ask directly. Who pays for nursing home care →

Part of chain: AVAMERE (27 facilities, chain avg rating 3.0★)

4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Nov 21, 2025
1
Serious findings on record
most recent Aug 9, 2024
$0
Fines, last 3 years
5.05
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)

New to these records? How to read an inspection report →

Health inspection rating: ★★★★☆4/5 · CMS overall rating: 5/5 · how star ratings work →

The health inspection star above is graded on a curve within each state — a set share of each state's facilities gets each star level — so a facility can have few citations and still rate 2–3 stars if others in its state did even better. The overall rating combines that inspection score with staffing and quality measures from resident assessments and claims.

Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Aug 9, 2024 · F-0686

The facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving.

Why it matters: Bedsores are painful, can become deeply infected, and in serious cases can be life-threatening.

Severity (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.

Corrected: Sep 11, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

Inspection findings in the public record

Showing the latest 3 of 32 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.

  1. D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated

    The facility did not provide required paperwork or notices about a resident's needs, their right to appeal a transfer or discharge, or the facility's bed-hold policy (how long a bed is saved during a hospital stay). · from a complaint F-0628

  2. D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated

    The facility did not make sure a transfer or discharge met the resident's needs and preferences, or did not properly prepare the resident to leave safely. · from a complaint F-0627

  3. D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated

    The facility used physical restraints — devices that limit a resident's movement — when they weren't needed for medical treatment. F-0604

View all 32 inspection findingsShow only the latest 3 findings

CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed — that window is CMS's, not ours. Within it, every citation CMS publishes for this facility is listed here: none excluded.

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
Mar 4, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide required paperwork or notices about a resident's needs, their right to appeal a transfer or discharge, or the facility's bed-hold policy (how long a bed is saved during a hospital stay). · from a complaint · F-0628
Dec 3, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not make sure a transfer or discharge met the resident's needs and preferences, or did not properly prepare the resident to leave safely. · from a complaint · F-0627
Nov 21, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility used physical restraints — devices that limit a resident's movement — when they weren't needed for medical treatment. · F-0604
Nov 21, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines. · F-0656
Nov 21, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility allowed residents to lose the ability to do daily activities — like bathing, dressing, and eating — when there was no medical reason for the decline. Good care helps residents keep the abilities they have. · F-0676
Nov 21, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · F-0684
Nov 21, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not keep residents' medications free from unnecessary drugs. Residents should only take medicines they truly need, at the right dose, for a clear reason. · F-0757
Nov 21, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · F-0880
Nov 21, 2025C · Potential for minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not post its nurse staffing information every day. Nursing homes must publicly display how many nurses and aides are on duty each day. · F-0732
Oct 7, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not keep residents' medications free from unnecessary drugs. Residents should only take medicines they truly need, at the right dose, for a clear reason. · from a complaint · F-0757
Aug 9, 2024▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving. · F-0686
Aug 9, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility used physical restraints — devices that limit a resident's movement — when they weren't needed for medical treatment. · F-0604
Aug 9, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not treat residents with dignity and respect, or did not honor their rights to make their own decisions and communicate freely. This is one of the most fundamental resident rights. · F-0550
Aug 9, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not let a resident help develop and carry out their own plan of care — the written roadmap of the services and support they'll receive, built around their personal goals and preferences. · F-0553
Aug 9, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not honor residents' rights to request, refuse, or stop treatment, to decline participation in medical research, or to make an advance directive — a written statement of their wishes for future medical care. · F-0578
Aug 9, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not honor residents' right to voice complaints without discrimination or retaliation, or did not have a working complaint process that resolves issues promptly. · F-0585
Aug 9, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not give the resident or their representative written notice of how long it would hold the resident's bed during a hospital stay or approved leave. · F-0625
Aug 9, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines. · F-0656
Aug 9, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · F-0684
Aug 9, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · F-0880
Oct 10, 2023E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not provide the care needed to maintain or improve residents' movement and flexibility — such as range-of-motion exercises — leading to avoidable decline. · from a complaint · F-0688
Sep 22, 2023F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · F-0812
Sep 22, 2023E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not let a resident help develop and carry out their own plan of care — the written roadmap of the services and support they'll receive, built around their personal goals and preferences. · F-0553
Sep 22, 2023E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not give residents the required written notice of their rights, the facility's rules, the services offered, and what those services cost. · F-0572
Sep 22, 2023E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not give residents important notices in a format and language they can understand — for example, translated documents or accessible formats for those with vision or hearing loss. · F-0574
Sep 22, 2023E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not make its inspection results easy for residents to see, or made it hard for residents to contact advocacy agencies like the ombudsman. · F-0577
Sep 22, 2023E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility's menus did not meet residents' nutritional needs, or were not prepared in advance, followed as written, kept up to date, or reviewed by a dietician. · F-0803
Sep 22, 2023E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not serve meals and snacks at times that fit residents' needs, preferences, and requests, or did not offer nourishing alternatives for residents who want to eat outside scheduled meal times. · F-0809
Sep 22, 2023E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not properly inform residents or their representatives about arbitration agreements — contracts that give up the right to sue in court — including their right to refuse to sign. · F-0847
Sep 22, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not honor residents' rights to request, refuse, or stop treatment, to decline participation in medical research, or to make an advance directive — a written statement of their wishes for future medical care. · F-0578
Sep 22, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not give residents (and their representatives and the ombudsman, a state advocate for residents) proper advance notice before a transfer or discharge, including information about their right to appeal. · F-0623
Sep 22, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not give the resident or their representative written notice of how long it would hold the resident's bed during a hospital stay or approved leave. · F-0625

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (10 → 7).

Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2023
All citations: 12
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 11
Serious citations (G–L): 1
2025
All citations: 8
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 1
Serious citations (G–L): 0

All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
2023120F
2024111G ▲
202580D
202610D

Counts reflect the current CMS public record (~3 inspection cycles plus complaint investigations); years with no surveys show no row. Inspection frequency varies, so compare severity as well as counts.

Fines and enforcement (last 3 years)

How to file a complaint about care →

No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.

Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)

What these staffing numbers mean →

Nurse time, in contextAdjusted hours per resident per day · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
This facilityWashington averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 5.05
Washington average: 4.24
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 1.22
Washington average: 0.91
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 4.55
Washington average: 3.69
U.S. average: 3.50

All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.

MeasureThis facilityWashington avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)5.054.243.95top 9% in Washington; top 12% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours1.220.910.69top 15% in Washington; top 9% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing4.553.693.50top 9% in Washington; top 11% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.740.670.48top 32% in Washington; top 14% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)27.445.145.8top 6% in Washington; top 10% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)30.045.442.9top 20% in Washington; top 29% in the U.S.

Hours are per resident per day for the most recent quarter of payroll data in this CMS release (2026-08-01) — the same quarter for every facility — case-mix adjusted by CMS so facilities caring for sicker residents can be compared fairly (same basis as the CMS staffing star). "Top X%" means better than most facilities: more staffing hours, or lower turnover. Raw (unadjusted) reported hours: total 4.76, RN 1.15, weekend 4.29.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.76 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 5/5.

Quality measures: assessments & claims

Note: CMS combines facility-reported resident assessments (MDS) with claims-based measures. These are different sources from on-site inspection findings. Read the measures alongside inspection and staffing records; a high QM rating does not establish that a home is safe.

Quality measures rating: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 3/5

Costs & payment

Price evidence · separate from quality

No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Avamere Rehabilitation of Cascade Park. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.

Calculate a stay from a quote you receive

Use a written private-pay quote. This worksheet adds only the amounts you enter; it does not calculate Medicare, Medicaid or insurance benefits.

Formula: (room rate + daily extras) × days + one-time charges. A 30-day scenario is not a calendar-month quote. Refundable deposits, rate changes and charges you omit are not automatically included. Entries are not saved or sent to our server.

Before you compare prices

  • Request the room type, effective date and itemized daily rate in writing.
  • Ask about therapy, medicines, supplies, care-level charges, deposits, refunds and annual increases.
  • Confirm insurance or Medicaid eligibility and bed availability directly; certification alone does not guarantee either.

Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price

Who owns this facility

How to read ownership records →

Ownership records as published by CMS on 2026-08-01. CMS records when an owner joined but not when they left. Listed here and no longer involved? Tell us →

For profit - Corporation

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Kofstad, MaryIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE02/13/2024
Morris, ChristopherIndividualContracted Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE09/01/2016
Rose, RyanIndividualW-2 Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE08/22/2024
Simpson, AndrewIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE06/01/2024

All 4 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.

Other facilities in the same chain

CMS lists this facility under the chain Avamere — 27 facilities in the current records. Chain membership says who operates these homes. It says nothing about how any individual one of them was inspected; each has its own record.

Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 26 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.

Questions to ask on your visit

Full visit checklist →

Print visit checklist

Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.

  • "How do you prevent bedsores for residents who can't move themselves, and how often are at-risk residents repositioned?"
  • "What written notices do we get before any transfer or discharge, and what is your bed-hold policy?"
  • "Before a resident is discharged or transferred, how do you make sure the new place can actually meet their needs?"
  • "What is your policy on physical restraints, and what alternatives do you try first?"
  • "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
  • "How do you help residents maintain their daily living skills, and how do you measure whether it's working?"
  • "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
  • "How often is each resident's medication list reviewed, and who decides when a drug can be reduced or stopped?"

Also worth asking anywhere

  • "What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
  • "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
  • "CMS reports 27% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
  • "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"

Nearby facilities (12 closest of 54 within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Hudson Bay Health and Rehabilitation3.5 miVancouver, WA★★★★★5/5
Vancouver Specialty and Rehab Care3.5 miVancouver, WA★★★★☆4/5
Evergreen Post Acute5.1 miPortland, OR★★☆☆☆2/5
Lacamas Creek Post Acute5.6 miCamas, WA★★★★★5/5
Rose City Nursing and Rehabilitation5.8 miPortland, OR★★★☆☆3/5
Porthaven Post Acute6.0 miPortland, OR★★★☆☆2/5
Menlo Park Post Acute6.1 miPortland, OR★★☆☆☆2/5
Fernhill Rehabilitation and Care6.4 miPortland, OR★★☆☆☆2/5abuse
Glisan Post Acute6.5 miPortland, OR★★☆☆☆2/5
Gateway Care and Retirement6.7 miPortland, OR★★★☆☆3/5
Portland Health and Rehabilitation6.7 miPortland, OR★☆☆☆☆1/5
Village Manor of Cascadia7.2 miWood Village, OR★★★★☆3/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

Other facilities in the same county

CMS records place this facility in Clark, WA — 8 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.

Listed by facility name — not a ranking. Homes already in the table above are not repeated here.

All facilities in Vancouver →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 505389.

Your research

Viewed & saved homes

Kept in this browser tab for this session. Choose to remember them only on a device you trust. Opening a record or comparison sends its usual page request.

Selected for comparison

Recently viewed

Prices entered in a cost worksheet stay on that page and are not saved. Privacy details