How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Regency Gresham Nursing & Rehabilitation Center
5905 SE Powell Valley Rd, Gresham, OR 97080 (opens Google Maps) · Multnomah County · (503) 665-1151· 128 certified beds · avg 90 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: REGENCY PACIFIC MANAGEMENT (27 facilities, chain avg rating 3.9★)
4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Sep 19, 2025
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
5.56
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)
Every record stays on this page.
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.
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 21 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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
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. F-0812
The 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
View all 21 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.
| Date | Severity | What the facility was cited for |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 19, 2025 | 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 |
| Sep 19, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0812 |
| Sep 19, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 |
| Sep 19, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0699 |
| Sep 19, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 |
| Sep 19, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0880 |
| Jul 1, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The 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 |
| Jul 1, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584 |
| Jul 1, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The 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 |
| Jul 1, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 · F-0812 |
| Jul 1, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not give residents proper notice about what Medicare or Medicaid covers, or about charges the resident might owe for services that aren't covered. · from a complaint · F-0582 |
| Jul 1, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 |
| Jul 1, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0656 |
| Apr 21, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0578 |
| Apr 21, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0657 |
| Apr 21, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 |
| Apr 21, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584 |
| Apr 21, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 |
| Apr 21, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689 |
| Apr 21, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 |
| Apr 21, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0725 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (7 → 6).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2023
All citations: 8
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 7
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 6
Serious citations (G–L): 0
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 8 | 0 | E |
| 2024 | 7 | 0 | E |
| 2025 | 6 | 0 | E |
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)
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
What these staffing numbers mean →
This facilityOregon averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 5.56
Oregon average: 5.42
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.71
Oregon average: 0.78
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 5.05
Oregon average: 4.85
U.S. average: 3.50
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Measure | This facility | Oregon avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 5.56 | 5.42 | 3.95 | top 34% in Oregon; top 7% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.71 | 0.78 | 0.69 | top 46% in Oregon; top 36% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 5.05 | 4.85 | 3.50 | top 30% in Oregon; top 6% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.58 | 0.48 | 0.48 | top 23% in Oregon; top 24% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 29.7 | 47.4 | 45.8 | top 6% in Oregon; top 14% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 33.3 | 51.6 | 42.9 | top 21% in Oregon; top 33% 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 5.39, RN 0.69, weekend 4.90.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (5.39 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 Regency Gresham Nursing & Rehabilitation Center. 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 / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stroud, David | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 33% | 04/23/2007 |
| Beddoe, Marvin | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/23/2007 |
| Beddoe, Marvin | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/23/2007 |
| Beddoe, Sandra | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2001 |
| Beddoe, Sandra | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2001 |
| Clay, James | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/01/2007 |
| Dunham, Sarah | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/01/2022 |
| Dunham, Sarah | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/01/2022 |
| Knippers, Anthony | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/16/2018 |
| Knippers, Anthony | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/16/2018 |
| Omnicare LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/01/2013 |
| Rapp, Andrew | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/08/2016 |
| Rapp, Andrew | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/08/2016 |
| Regency Pacific Management LLC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2010 |
| Regency Pacific Management LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/26/2025 |
| Stroud, David | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/01/2007 |
All 16 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 Regency Pacific Management — 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.
- Regency Hermiston Nursing & Rehab Center — Hermiston, OR · overall 3/5
- Regency Prineville Rehabilitation and Nursing Cent — Prineville, OR · overall 5/5
- Regency Redmond Rehabilitation and Nursing Center — Redmond, OR · overall 5/5
- Arlington Health and Rehabilitation — Arlington, WA · overall 4/5
- Good Samaritan Health Care Ctr — Yakima, WA · overall 5/5
- Mt Baker Care Center — Bellingham, WA · overall 5/5
- Park Rose Care Center — Tacoma, WA · overall 2/5
- Puyallup Post Acute — Puyallup, WA · overall 1/5
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
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "Can you show me how medications are stored and secured on the units, including controlled drugs?"
- "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
- "How many aides are on each shift, and how do you make sure every resident gets timely help with bathing, dressing, and meals?"
- "How do you learn about each resident's background and history, and how does that shape their care?"
- "How often is each resident's medication list reviewed, and who decides when a drug can be reduced or stopped?"
- "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
- "Where do you post your latest state inspection results and the ombudsman's contact information?"
- "Can we tour the resident rooms, bathrooms, and common areas today, including areas not on the usual tour route?"
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 30% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "The ownership record on file lists 16 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 48 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fairlawn Health and Rehabilitation of Cascadia | 1.9 mi | Gresham, OR | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Gresham Post Acute Care and Rehabilitation | 3.0 mi | Gresham, OR | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Village Manor of Cascadia | 4.2 mi | Wood Village, OR | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Marquis Centennial Post Acute Rehab | 4.8 mi | Portland, OR | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Village Health Care | 5.3 mi | Gresham, OR | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Lacamas Creek Post Acute | 7.2 mi | Camas, WA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Cedar Crossings | 7.3 mi | Portland, OR | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Avalon Care Center - Portland | 7.8 mi | Portland, OR | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Cascade Terrace Post Acute | 8.3 mi | Portland, OR | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | SFF |
| Portland Health and Rehabilitation | 8.5 mi | Portland, OR | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Menlo Park Post Acute | 8.7 mi | Portland, OR | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Secora Rehabilitation of Cascadia | 9.2 mi | Portland, 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.
- Robison Jewish Health Center — Portland, OR · overall 2/5
- Rose City Nursing and Rehabilitation — Portland, OR · overall 3/5
- The Creston Health & Rehabilitation — Portland, OR · overall 1/5
- West Hills Health & Rehabilitation — Portland, OR · overall 4/5
Listed by facility name — not a ranking. Homes already in the table above are not repeated here.
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 385015.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).