Oregon ›Oregon City

Avamere Rehabilitation of Oregon City

Costs & paymentPlan a visit

1400 Division Street, Oregon City, OR 97045 (opens Google Maps) · Clackamas County · (503) 656-0367· 111 certified beds · avg 62 residents/day · certified since Mar 28, 1975 · 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★)

2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Jun 6, 2025
3
Serious findings on record
most recent Aug 29, 2025
$85,768
Fines, last 3 years
5.70
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: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · CMS overall rating: 2/5 · 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 29, 2025 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.

Why it matters: This is one of the most common citations and directly relates to falls and injuries, which can be devastating for older adults.

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: Jun 26, 2025 (Past Non-Compliance)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Feb 13, 2024 · F-0686 · triggered by a complaint

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: Apr 2, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jan 13, 2023 · F-0684

The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.

Why it matters: Care that strays from doctor's orders or ignores the resident's wishes can lead to declining health and avoidable harm.

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: Feb 22, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

Inspection findings in the public record

Showing the latest 3 of 61 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.

  1. G · Actual harm, isolated

    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 F-0689

  2. E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern

    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. F-0761

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

    The facility did not make sure residents were fully informed about their own health, care, and treatments in a way they could understand. F-0552

View all 61 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
Aug 29, 2025▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint · F-0689
Jun 6, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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. · F-0761
Jun 6, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not make sure residents were fully informed about their own health, care, and treatments in a way they could understand. · F-0552
Jun 6, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584
Jun 6, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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 · F-0610
Jun 6, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not coordinate resident assessments with the state's pre-admission screening program for mental illness and intellectual disabilities, or failed to refer residents for the special services they need. · F-0644
Jun 6, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not help a resident get vision and hearing services — such as eye exams, glasses, hearing tests, or hearing aids. · F-0685
Jun 6, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · F-0688
Jun 6, 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
Jan 17, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not properly prepare residents for a safe transfer or discharge. Before a resident leaves, the facility must get them ready and make sure the move is safe and orderly. · from a complaint · F-0624
Jan 17, 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. · from a complaint · F-0684
Jan 17, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. · from a complaint · F-0804
Feb 13, 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. · from a complaint · F-0686
Feb 13, 2024F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not run an ongoing quality assurance committee that reviews care problems and creates plans to fix them. · from a complaint · F-0867
Feb 13, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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 · F-0684
Feb 13, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not have enough nursing staff each day to meet every resident's needs, or did not have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift. Adequate staffing is one of the strongest predictors of good care. · from a complaint · F-0725
Feb 13, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not observe each nurse aide's job performance or provide regular training as required. · from a complaint · F-0730
Feb 13, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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. · from a complaint · F-0732
Feb 13, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not make sure its nurse aides had the skills needed to care for residents, including training in dementia care and abuse prevention. · from a complaint · F-0947
Feb 13, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not allow residents to take their own medications when a clinical review showed they could do so safely. Residents have this right if their care team determines it's appropriate. · from a complaint · F-0554
Feb 13, 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. · from a complaint · F-0578
Feb 13, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · from a complaint · F-0584
Feb 13, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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 · F-0602
Feb 13, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · from a complaint · F-0609
Feb 13, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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 · F-0610
Feb 13, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · F-0636
Feb 13, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not reassess a resident after a significant change in their condition, such as a sudden decline in health. A full new assessment is required when a resident's condition changes in a major way. · from a complaint · F-0637
Feb 13, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. · from a complaint · F-0641
Feb 13, 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. · from a complaint · F-0656
Feb 13, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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 · F-0657
Feb 13, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · from a complaint · F-0658
Feb 13, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide the help residents need with basic daily activities — like bathing, dressing, eating, and using the bathroom — for residents who cannot do these things on their own. · from a complaint · F-0677
Feb 13, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not help a resident get vision and hearing services — such as eye exams, glasses, hearing tests, or hearing aids. · from a complaint · F-0685
Feb 13, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide proper foot care for residents. Foot care includes routine care like nail trimming and attention to foot problems, which matter greatly for older adults. · from a complaint · F-0687
Feb 13, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Feb 13, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint · F-0689
Feb 13, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide safe and appropriate respiratory care — such as oxygen, breathing treatments, or care for residents on breathing equipment — for residents who needed it. · from a complaint · F-0695
Feb 13, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · from a complaint · F-0697
Feb 13, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail. · from a complaint · F-0698
Feb 13, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · from a complaint · F-0759
Feb 13, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide or arrange dental services for its residents. Nursing homes are responsible for making sure residents can get dental care. · from a complaint · F-0791
Feb 13, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide special eating equipment and utensils — like adaptive cups or easy-grip silverware — for residents who need them, along with appropriate help at meals. · from a complaint · F-0810
Feb 13, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide or arrange specialized rehabilitation services — such as physical, occupational, or speech therapy — for residents who needed them. · from a complaint · F-0825
Jan 13, 2023▲ G · Actual 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
Jan 13, 2023F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not have enough nursing staff each day to meet every resident's needs, or did not have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift. Adequate staffing is one of the strongest predictors of good care. · F-0725
Jan 13, 2023F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not have enough support staff to safely and effectively run its food and nutrition service. · F-0802
Jan 13, 2023F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. · F-0804
Jan 13, 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
Jan 13, 2023F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not run an ongoing quality assurance committee that reviews care problems and creates plans to fix them. · F-0867
Jan 13, 2023E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not honor residents' right to form and take part in resident or family groups, such as a resident council. · F-0565
Jan 13, 2023E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not provide activities that meet residents' needs and interests. Nursing homes must offer meaningful activity programs, not just leave residents idle. · F-0679
Jan 13, 2023E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility's activities program was not run by a qualified professional. The person directing recreation and social activities must have proper training or credentials. · F-0680
Jan 13, 2023E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Jan 13, 2023E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not have a policy covering how food brought in by family and visitors is used and stored safely. · F-0813
Jan 13, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not make reasonable adjustments to fit each resident's individual needs and preferences — things like call buttons within reach, preferred wake-up times, or accessible room setups. · F-0558
Jan 13, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not honor residents' right to make their own choices about their daily lives, such as when to wake up, what to eat, or how to spend their time. · F-0561
Jan 13, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · F-0657
Jan 13, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide the right treatment and services for residents with dementia or signs of dementia. Dementia care requires specific approaches, training, and patience. · F-0744
Jan 13, 2023D · 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
Jan 13, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · F-0759
Jan 13, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide food that accounts for each resident's allergies, intolerances, and personal preferences, or did not offer appealing alternatives. · F-0806

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (31 → 8).

Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2023
All citations: 18
Serious citations (G–L): 1
2024
All citations: 31
Serious citations (G–L): 1
2025
All citations: 12
Serious citations (G–L): 1

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

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
2023181G ▲
2024311G ▲
2025121G ▲

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 →

1 fine totaling $85,768.

Every penalty CMS publishes for this facility in the 3-year window is listed —none excluded. The count and the dollar total come from two different CMS datasets and agree for this facility. Penalties older than the window are dropped by CMS before publication, not by us.

DateTypeAmount / length
Feb 13, 2024Fine$85,768

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 facilityOregon averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 5.70
Oregon average: 5.42
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.50
Oregon average: 0.78
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 5.11
Oregon average: 4.85
U.S. average: 3.50

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

MeasureThis facilityOregon avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)5.705.423.95top 26% in Oregon; top 6% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.500.780.69bottom 21% in Oregon; bottom 38% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing5.114.853.50top 26% in Oregon; top 5% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.360.480.48bottom 43% in Oregon; bottom 44% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)52.647.445.8bottom 33% in Oregon; bottom 30% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)70.051.642.9bottom 23% in Oregon; bottom 12% 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 5.26, RN 0.47, weekend 4.72.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (5.26 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 4/5.

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: 3/5 · long-stay residents: 3/5 · short-stay residents: 4/5

Costs & payment

Price evidence · separate from quality

No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Avamere Rehabilitation of Oregon City. 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 - Limited Liability company

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Ari Operations, LLCOrganizationIndirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE01/06/2006
Ariso LLCOrganizationDirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE01/06/2006
Avamere Group LLCOrganizationIndirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE01/06/2006
Karl Rickard Miller Jr Revocable TrustOrganizationIndirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE07/11/2011
Miller, KarlIndividualIndirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE07/20/2001
Angerhofer, NicoleIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE12/01/2023
Angerhofer, NicoleIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE12/01/2023
Avamere Health Services LLCOrganizationOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2005
Avamere Health Services LLCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE07/10/2025
Avamere Skilled Advisors LLCOrganizationOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2005
Avamere Skilled Advisors LLCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE07/14/2025
Cavallo, GlenIndividualManaging Control - Governing BodyNOT APPLICABLE06/01/2025
Dana, JenniferIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE05/01/2022
Dana, JenniferIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE05/01/2022
Davis, JulieIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE08/01/2024
Doepker, AndreaIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE09/28/2023
Doepker, AndreaIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE09/08/2023
Feakin, CodyIndividualManaging Control - Governing BodyNOT APPLICABLE06/01/2025
Feakin, CodyIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE07/15/2025
Feakin, CodyIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2025

Showing 20 of 67 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 47 are not displayed. The full list is in the CMS Ownership dataset.

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.

  • "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
  • "How do you prevent bedsores for residents who can't move themselves, and how often are at-risk residents repositioned?"
  • "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
  • "Can you show me how medications are stored and secured on the units, including controlled drugs?"
  • "How do you explain health changes and treatment options to residents and their families?"
  • "Can we tour the resident rooms, bathrooms, and common areas today, including areas not on the usual tour route?"
  • "If someone reports suspected abuse or neglect here, what happens in the first 24 hours?"
  • "How do you identify and arrange specialized services for residents with mental health conditions or disabilities?"

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 53% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
  • "The ownership record on file lists 67 owning or managing parties — who makes the decisions about staffing levels?"
  • "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"

Nearby facilities (12 closest of 56 within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Rivercrest Post Acute1.2 miOregon City, OR★★☆☆☆2/5
Marquis Oregon City Post Acute Rehab1.5 miOregon City, OR★★★★★4/5
Avamere Rehabilitation of Clackamas2.0 miGladstone, OR★★★★☆3/5
Rose Linn Care Center3.4 miWest Linn, OR★★★☆☆4/5
Stanley Post Acute5.7 miMilwaukie, OR★★★☆☆3/5
Fernwood Supportive Living at Madrona Grove5.7 miPortland, OR★★★★☆3/5
Willamette View Health Center5.8 miMilwaukie, OR★★★★★5/5
The Pearl at Kruse Way7.7 miLake Oswego, OR★★★★☆4/5
Marquis Hope Village8.8 miCanby, OR★★★★☆4/5
Marquis Tualatin Post Acute Rehab8.9 miTualatin, OR★★★★★4/5
Gracelen Care Center9.1 miPortland, OR★☆☆☆☆1/5
Cascade Terrace Post Acute9.1 miPortland, OR★☆☆☆☆1/5SFF

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

Other facilities in the same county

CMS records place this facility in Clackamas, OR — 13 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 Oregon City →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 385125.

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