Avamere Rehabilitation of Junction City

Name: Avamere Rehabilitation of Junction City
Address: 530 BIRCH STREET, Junction City, OR, 97448, US
Telephone: 5419982395

530 Birch Street, Junction City, OR 97448 · Lane County · 53 certified beds · avg 46 residents/day · certified since Jan 29, 1992

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

3/5

Health inspection rating (on-site)

Serious findings on record

$8,678

Fines, last 3 years

5.60

Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

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

Health inspection rating: ★★★☆☆3/5 · CMS overall rating: 4/5

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 self-reported quality measures.

Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, one-off · Jan 19, 2023 · F-0600

The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors.

Why it matters: Abuse and neglect cause direct physical and emotional harm and are among the most serious failures a nursing home can have.

Severity (J): Inspectors found a situation that put a resident's life or safety in immediate danger, affecting one or a few residents. The facility must fix it immediately — these citations often come with large fines.

Corrected: Feb 8, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Jun 7, 2024 · F-0760 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication.

Why it matters: A serious medication error can cause real harm, hospitalization, or worse.

Severity (G): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.

Corrected: Jun 19, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Jan 19, 2023 · F-0745

The facility did not provide the social services residents need — such as counseling, help with adjustment, or connecting to outside resources — to achieve the best possible quality of life.

Why it matters: Without social services support, residents can struggle emotionally and miss out on help they're entitled to.

Severity (G): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.

Corrected: Feb 8, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

All citations in the current public record (35)

CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed.

Date	Severity	What the facility was cited for
Dec 8, 2025	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint
Dec 8, 2025	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not respond appropriately to alleged violations, such as reports of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Facilities must investigate every allegation and protect residents while they do. · from a complaint
Dec 8, 2025	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · from a complaint
Jul 28, 2025	F · Potential for harm, facility-wide	The 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.
Jul 28, 2025	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives.
Jul 28, 2025	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.
Jul 28, 2025	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not provide care that took into account residents' past trauma or their cultural backgrounds. Care is supposed to be sensitive to what residents have lived through and where they come from. · from a complaint
Jul 28, 2025	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not provide necessary behavioral health care and services — support for residents' mental and emotional wellbeing, including conditions like depression and anxiety.
Jul 28, 2025	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility's medication error rate was 5 percent or higher — meaning too many doses were given incorrectly, such as the wrong drug, dose, or time.
Jun 7, 2024	▲ G · Actual harm, one-off	The facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication. · from a complaint
Jun 7, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not protect residents from misuse of their belongings or money — this is called misappropriation, and it includes theft or improper use of a resident's property or funds. · from a complaint
Apr 5, 2024	F · Potential for harm, facility-wide	The facility did not have a registered nurse on duty at least 8 hours a day, or did not have a registered nurse serving full-time as director of nursing. · from a complaint
Apr 5, 2024	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock. · from a complaint
Apr 5, 2024	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · from a complaint
Apr 5, 2024	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The 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. · from a complaint
Apr 5, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The 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. · from a complaint
Apr 5, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · from a complaint
Apr 5, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required. · from a complaint
Apr 5, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint
Jan 19, 2023	▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, one-off	The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors.
Jan 19, 2023	▲ G · Actual harm, one-off	The facility did not provide the social services residents need — such as counseling, help with adjustment, or connecting to outside resources — to achieve the best possible quality of life.
Jan 19, 2023	F · Potential for harm, facility-wide	The 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.
Jan 19, 2023	F · Potential for harm, facility-wide	The facility did not have a working program to monitor how antibiotics are used. Tracking antibiotic use helps make sure these drugs are given only when needed and remain effective.
Jan 19, 2023	F · Potential for harm, facility-wide	The facility did not designate a qualified infection preventionist — a trained person responsible for running the infection prevention and control program.
Jan 19, 2023	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not have a registered nurse on duty at least 8 hours a day, or did not have a registered nurse serving full-time as director of nursing.
Jan 19, 2023	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility's medication error rate was 5 percent or higher — meaning too many doses were given incorrectly, such as the wrong drug, dose, or time.
Jan 19, 2023	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility was not managed in a way that uses its money, staff, and resources effectively and efficiently to care for residents.
Jan 19, 2023	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not run an ongoing quality assurance committee that reviews care problems and creates plans to fix them.
Jan 19, 2023	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility's quality committee — the internal group responsible for finding and fixing care problems — did not have the required members or did not meet at least every three months.
Jan 19, 2023	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The 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.
Jan 19, 2023	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation.
Jan 19, 2023	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not respond appropriately to alleged violations, such as reports of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Facilities must investigate every allegation and protect residents while they do.
Jan 19, 2023	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not fully assess residents on time — a complete assessment of health, abilities, and needs is required when a resident is first admitted and at least once every 12 months after that.
Jan 19, 2023	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The 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.
Jan 19, 2023	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (8 → 6).

Year	Citations	Serious (G–L)	Worst severity that year
2023	16	2	J ▲
2024	10	1	G ▲
2025	9	0	F

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)

1 fine totaling $8,678.

Date	Type	Amount / length
Jun 7, 2024	Fine	$8,678

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

Measure	This facility	Oregon avg	U.S. avg	Where it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)	5.60	5.42	3.95	top 33% in Oregon; top 6% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours	0.57	0.78	0.69	bottom 33% in Oregon; bottom 47% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing	5.22	4.85	3.50	top 23% in Oregon; top 5% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)	0.40	0.48	0.48	top 46% in Oregon; top 49% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)	45.6	47.4	45.8	top 49% in Oregon; bottom 48% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)	0.0	51.6	42.9	—

Hours are per resident per day, 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 4.75, RN 0.48, weekend 4.42. Staffing rating: 4/5.

Self-reported quality measures

Note: these ratings are based on data the facility reports about itself to CMS. They are not independently verified by inspectors, and can look better than inspection findings. Give more weight to the inspection results above.

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

Who owns this facility

For profit - Corporation

Owner / manager	Type	Role	Stake	Since
Ari Operations, LLC	Organization	Indirect Ownership Interest	NOT APPLICABLE	01/01/2006
Ariso LLC	Organization	Direct Ownership Interest	NOT APPLICABLE	01/06/2006
Avamere Group LLC	Organization	Indirect Ownership Interest	NOT APPLICABLE	01/06/2006
Karl Rickard Miller Jr Revocable Trust	Organization	Indirect Ownership Interest	NOT APPLICABLE	07/11/2011
Avamere Health Services LLC	Organization	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	01/01/2005
Avamere Health Services LLC	Organization	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	07/03/2025
Avamere Skilled Advisors LLC	Organization	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	01/01/2005
Avamere Skilled Advisors LLC	Organization	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	07/03/2025
Brazee, Brittany	Individual	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	05/06/2024
Cavallo, Glen	Individual	Managing Control - Governing Body	NOT APPLICABLE	06/01/2025
Dana, Jennifer	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	05/01/2022
Dana, Jennifer	Individual	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	05/01/2022
Davis, Jennifer	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	10/06/2025
Davis, Jennifer	Individual	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	12/30/2025
Feakin, Cody	Individual	Managing Control - Governing Body	NOT APPLICABLE	06/01/2025
Feakin, Cody	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	12/01/2025
Feakin, Cody	Individual	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	01/01/2025
Funderberg, Michelle	Individual	Managing Control - Governing Body	NOT APPLICABLE	06/01/2025
Funderberg, Michelle	Individual	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	12/31/2024
Games, Kim	Individual	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	08/15/2024

Questions to ask on your visit

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

"Tell me about this abuse or neglect citation — what happened, and what specific changes did you make afterward?"
"What systems do you use to prevent medication errors, and what happens when one occurs?"
"Who provides social services here, and how would they support my family member's emotional and social needs?"
"If someone reports suspected abuse or neglect here, what happens in the first 24 hours?"
"How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
"Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
"Who completes resident assessments here, and how do you check them for accuracy?"
"How do you learn about each resident's background and history, and how does that shape their care?"
"What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
"Can I see the results and plan of correction from your most recent state inspection?"

Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)

Facility	Distance	City	Overall	Inspection	Flags
Avamere Riverpark of Eugene	10.7 mi	Eugene, OR	★★☆☆☆	2/5
Green Valley Rehabilitation Health Center	11.3 mi	Eugene, OR	★☆☆☆☆	1/5
Valley West Health Care Center	13.2 mi	Eugene, OR	★★☆☆☆	2/5
Avamere Rehabilitation of Eugene	13.4 mi	Eugene, OR	★☆☆☆☆	1/5
Hillside Heights Rehabilitation Center	14.0 mi	Eugene, OR	★★★☆☆	3/5
Cascade Manor	14.5 mi	Eugene, OR	★★★★☆	4/5
Marquis Springfield	14.5 mi	Springfield, OR	★★★★☆	3/5
South Hills Rehabilitation Center	14.5 mi	Eugene, OR	★☆☆☆☆	1/5	abuseSFF
Creekside Health and Rehabilitation of Cascadia	15.0 mi	Eugene, OR	★★★★★	4/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Junction City →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 385229.

The Care File

Visit checklist — Avamere Rehabilitation of Junction City

530 Birch Street, Junction City, OR 97448 · 5419982395

Health inspection rating 3/5 · CMS overall 4/5· Fines (3y): $8,678

Most serious findings on record:

▲ Jan 19, 2023 (F-0600, Immediate jeopardy, one-off): The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors.
▲ Jun 7, 2024 (F-0760, Actual harm, one-off): The facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication.
▲ Jan 19, 2023 (F-0745, Actual harm, one-off): The facility did not provide the social services residents need — such as counseling, help with adjustment, or connecting to outside resources — to achieve the best possible quality of life.

Questions for the administrator:

☐ "Tell me about this abuse or neglect citation — what happened, and what specific changes did you make afterward?"
☐ "What systems do you use to prevent medication errors, and what happens when one occurs?"
☐ "Who provides social services here, and how would they support my family member's emotional and social needs?"
☐ "If someone reports suspected abuse or neglect here, what happens in the first 24 hours?"
☐ "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
☐ "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
☐ "Who completes resident assessments here, and how do you check them for accuracy?"
☐ "How do you learn about each resident's background and history, and how does that shape their care?"
☐ "What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
☐ "Can I see the results and plan of correction from your most recent state inspection?"

While you're there, notice:

☐ Smell and cleanliness in hallways, not just the lobby
☐ How staff speak to residents; call lights answered promptly
☐ Residents up, dressed, and engaged (visit mealtimes and a weekend if you can)

Data: CMS Provider Data Catalog, version 2026-08-01 · CCN 385229 · Verify at medicare.gov/care-compare · Printed from The Care File (thecarefile.com)