Oregon ›Portland

Laurelhurst Post Acute & Rehabilitation

Costs & paymentPlan a visit

3060 SE Stark Street, Portland, OR 97214 (opens Google Maps) · Multnomah County · (503) 535-4700· 159 certified beds · avg 104 residents/day · certified since Jan 1, 1967 · 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: HILL VALLEY HEALTHCARE (43 facilities, chain avg rating 1.8★)

2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Mar 14, 2025
3
Serious findings on record
most recent Nov 6, 2023
$33,319
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: ★★☆☆☆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 · Nov 6, 2023 · F-0600 · triggered by a complaint

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 (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: Dec 20, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Nov 6, 2023 · 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: Dec 20, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Nov 6, 2023 · F-0725 · triggered by a complaint

The 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.

Why it matters: Understaffing means longer waits for help, missed care, and higher risk of falls and other 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: Dec 20, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

Inspection findings in the public record

Showing the latest 3 of 45 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 safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · from a complaint F-0697

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

    The facility did not provide timely, approved x-ray services or have an agreement with an approved provider to supply them. · from a complaint F-0776

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

    The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · from a complaint F-0692

View all 45 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
Jun 26, 2026D · 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
Jun 26, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide timely, approved x-ray services or have an agreement with an approved provider to supply them. · from a complaint · F-0776
Nov 4, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · from a complaint · F-0692
Nov 4, 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
Sep 8, 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
Mar 14, 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
Mar 14, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Mar 14, 2025D · 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. · F-0554
Mar 14, 2025D · 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. · F-0677
Mar 14, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Mar 14, 2025D · 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
Mar 14, 2025D · 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
Oct 31, 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. · from a complaint · F-0550
Nov 6, 2023▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe 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 · F-0600
Nov 6, 2023▲ 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
Nov 6, 2023▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe 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
Nov 6, 2023E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not honor residents' right to manage their own money and financial affairs. · from a complaint · F-0567
Nov 6, 2023E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · from a complaint · F-0584
Nov 6, 2023E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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. · from a complaint · F-0623
Nov 6, 2023E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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. · from a complaint · F-0625
Nov 6, 2023E · 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
Nov 6, 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. · from a complaint · F-0732
Nov 6, 2023E · 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. · from a complaint · F-0761
Nov 6, 2023E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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 · F-0812
Nov 6, 2023E · 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
Nov 6, 2023D · 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. · from a complaint · F-0552
Nov 6, 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. · from a complaint · F-0558
Nov 6, 2023D · 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
Nov 6, 2023D · 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
Nov 6, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide activities that meet residents' needs and interests. Nursing homes must offer meaningful activity programs, not just leave residents idle. · from a complaint · F-0679
Nov 6, 2023D · 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
Nov 6, 2023D · 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
Nov 6, 2023D · 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
Nov 6, 2023D · 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
Nov 6, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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 · F-0699
Nov 6, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not have a licensed pharmacist review each resident's complete medication regimen and medical chart every month, or did not follow its own rules for reporting medication problems. · from a complaint · F-0756
Nov 6, 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. · from a complaint · F-0759
Nov 6, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly. · from a complaint · F-0814
Oct 21, 2022F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe 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 21, 2022D · 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
Oct 21, 2022D · Potential for more than minimal 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
Oct 21, 2022D · 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. · F-0689
Oct 21, 2022D · 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. · F-0695
Oct 21, 2022D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · F-0697
Oct 21, 2022D · 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

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (25 → 5).

Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2022
All citations: 7
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2023
All citations: 25
Serious citations (G–L): 3
2024
All citations: 1
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 10
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 2
Serious citations (G–L): 0

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

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202270F
2023253G ▲
202410D
2025100E
202620D

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 $33,319.

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
Nov 3, 2023Fine$33,319

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: 5.05
Oregon average: 5.42
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.76
Oregon average: 0.78
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 4.65
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)5.055.423.95bottom 27% in Oregon; top 13% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.760.780.69top 38% in Oregon; top 31% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing4.654.853.50bottom 38% in Oregon; top 10% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.620.480.48top 20% in Oregon; top 22% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)47.147.445.8bottom 47% in Oregon; bottom 44% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)60.051.642.9bottom 38% in Oregon; bottom 22% 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 4.91, RN 0.74, weekend 4.52.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.91 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: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 4/5 · short-stay residents: 5/5

Costs & payment

Price evidence · separate from quality

No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Laurelhurst Post Acute & Rehabilitation. 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 · changed ownership in the last 12 months

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Delilah 2626 Holdings LLCOrganizationIndirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE07/01/2025
JML 1836 Holdings LLCOrganizationIndirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE07/01/2025
JNL 2024 Fam TrOrganizationIndirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE07/01/2025
Lansilh Irrv TrOrganizationIndirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE07/01/2025
Laurelhurst Operations Holdings LLCOrganization5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest100%07/01/2025
MJL 2024 Family TrustOrganizationIndirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE07/01/2025
Oeb 94 Holdings LLCOrganizationIndirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE07/01/2025
Oregon Healthcare Holdco LLCOrganization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest100%07/01/2025
Idels, ShimonIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE07/01/2025
Idels, ShimonIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE07/01/2025
Idels, ShimonIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE07/01/2025
Lion 26 Holdings LLCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE07/01/2025
Misili, LeumaIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE07/01/2025
Misili, LeumaIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE07/01/2025
Oregon Healthcare Holdco LLCOrganizationOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE07/01/2025
Poirier, TracieIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE07/01/2025
Poirier, TracieIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE07/01/2025
Sabrina 1818 Holdings LLCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE07/01/2025
Saessy Irrevocable TrustOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE07/01/2025
Tatiriq Irrevocable TrustOrganizationTrustee of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE07/01/2025

Showing 20 of 21 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 1 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 Hill Valley Healthcare — 43 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 42 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.

  • "Tell me about this abuse or neglect citation — what happened, and what specific changes did you make afterward?"
  • "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
  • "What is your nurse and aide staffing ratio on each shift, including nights and weekends?"
  • "How do you assess and manage residents' pain, especially for those who have trouble communicating?"
  • "If a resident needs an x-ray, how is it done and how long does it usually take?"
  • "How do you monitor residents' weight and eating, and what happens when someone starts losing weight?"
  • "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
  • "Before a resident is discharged or transferred, how do you make sure the new place can actually meet their needs?"

Also worth asking anywhere

  • "Your weekend nurse staffing is reported below the Oregon midpoint — how does the weekend schedule differ from a weekday?"
  • "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
  • "CMS reports 47% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
  • "CMS records an ownership change here in the last 12 months — what changed for residents and staff?"
  • "The ownership record on file lists 21 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 59 within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Belmont Care and Rehabilitation1.0 miPortland, OR★☆☆☆☆2/5
Providence Child Center1.2 miPortland, OR★★★★★5/5
Holladay Park Plaza1.3 miPortland, OR★★★★★5/5
Mt. Tabor Health & Rehabilitation1.5 miPortland, OR★★☆☆☆2/5
Reedwood Post Acute1.7 miPortland, OR★★★★★5/5
The Creston Health & Rehabilitation2.0 miPortland, OR★☆☆☆☆1/5
Mirabella Portland2.5 miPortland, OR★★★★★5/5
Porthaven Post Acute2.7 miPortland, OR★★★☆☆2/5
Fernhill Rehabilitation and Care3.1 miPortland, OR★★☆☆☆2/5abuse
Gateway Care and Retirement3.4 miPortland, OR★★★☆☆3/5
Glisan Post Acute3.4 miPortland, OR★★☆☆☆2/5
Marquis Mill Park3.4 miPortland, OR★★★☆☆2/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

Other facilities in the same county

CMS records place this facility in Multnomah, OR — 33 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 Portland →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 385010.

This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).

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