Idaho ›Twin Falls

Twin Falls Transitional Care of Cascadia

Costs & paymentPlan a visit

674 Eastland Drive, Twin Falls, ID 83301 (opens Google Maps) · Twin Falls County · (208) 734-4264· 116 certified beds · avg 79 residents/day · certified since Mar 10, 1988 · 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: CASCADIA HEALTHCARE (46 facilities, chain avg rating 3.0★)

4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Jun 12, 2025
5
Serious findings on record
most recent Apr 1, 2019
$0
Fines, last 3 years
2.98
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

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

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

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

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

Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, isolated · Apr 1, 2019 · F-0678

The facility did not provide basic life support, such as CPR, before emergency medical help arrived — care that's required when it matches the doctor's orders and the resident's own written wishes.

Why it matters: In a cardiac or breathing emergency, failure to start CPR promptly can be the difference between life and death.

Severity (J): Immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety was cited. 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: May 21, 2019 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Apr 1, 2019 · 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 (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: May 21, 2019 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Apr 1, 2019 · F-0610

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.

Why it matters: When allegations aren't investigated, harm to residents can continue unchecked.

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: May 21, 2019 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Apr 1, 2019 · F-0686

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

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

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

Corrected: May 21, 2019 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Apr 1, 2019 · F-0697

The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it.

Why it matters: Untreated pain causes needless suffering and can lead to depression, poor sleep, and declining health.

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: May 21, 2019 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

Inspection findings in the public record

Showing the latest 3 of 33 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.

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

    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 F-0578

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

    The 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

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

    The 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. · from a complaint F-0644

View all 33 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 12, 2025D · 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
Jun 12, 2025D · 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
Jun 12, 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. · from a complaint · F-0644
Jun 12, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not properly complete the required screening (called PASARR) that identifies whether a person entering a nursing home has a mental illness or intellectual disability and needs specialized services. · from a complaint · F-0645
Jun 12, 2025D · 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
Jun 12, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · from a complaint · F-0755
Jun 12, 2025D · 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
Jun 12, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Jun 12, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Jun 12, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · from a complaint · F-0842
Jul 5, 2024F · 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
Jul 5, 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. · F-0641
Jul 5, 2024D · 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
Jul 5, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility allowed residents to lose the ability to do daily activities — like bathing, dressing, and eating — when there was no medical reason for the decline. Good care helps residents keep the abilities they have. · F-0676
Jul 5, 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. · F-0689
Jul 5, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide appropriate care related to bladder and bowel needs — including care for residents who use catheters and steps to prevent urinary tract infections. · F-0690
Jul 5, 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. · F-0695
Apr 1, 2019▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, isolatedThe facility did not provide basic life support, such as CPR, before emergency medical help arrived — care that's required when it matches the doctor's orders and the resident's own written wishes. · F-0678
Apr 1, 2019▲ 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. · F-0600
Apr 1, 2019▲ G · Actual 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. · F-0610
Apr 1, 2019▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving. · F-0686
Apr 1, 2019▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · F-0697
Apr 1, 2019E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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 1, 2019E · 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
Apr 1, 2019D · 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
Apr 1, 2019D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not honor residents' rights to request, refuse, or stop treatment, to decline participation in medical research, or to make an advance directive — a written statement of their wishes for future medical care. · F-0578
Apr 1, 2019D · 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. · F-0609
Apr 1, 2019D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines. · F-0656
Apr 1, 2019D · 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
Apr 1, 2019D · 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
Apr 1, 2019D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not try to gradually reduce doses of mood- and mind-altering medications or use non-drug approaches first, as required, or used 'as needed' psychiatric drugs without proper limits. · F-0758
Apr 1, 2019D · 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
Apr 1, 2019C · Potential for minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not post its nurse staffing information every day. Nursing homes must publicly display how many nurses and aides are on duty each day. · F-0732

Inspection trend by year

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

Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2019
All citations: 16
Serious citations (G–L): 5
2024
All citations: 7
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 10
Serious citations (G–L): 0

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

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
2019165J ▲
202470F
2025100D

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

Fines and enforcement (last 3 years)

How to file a complaint about care →

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

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

What these staffing numbers mean →

Nurse time, in contextAdjusted hours per resident per day · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
This facilityIdaho averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 2.98
Idaho average: 4.03
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.56
Idaho average: 0.87
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 2.69
Idaho average: 3.48
U.S. average: 3.50

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

MeasureThis facilityIdaho avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)2.984.033.95bottom 9% in Idaho; bottom 13% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.560.870.69bottom 19% in Idaho; bottom 47% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing2.693.483.50bottom 13% in Idaho; bottom 16% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.580.560.48top 39% in Idaho; top 25% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)44.950.345.8top 29% in Idaho; top 50% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)46.241.042.9bottom 41% in Idaho; bottom 42% 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 3.70, RN 0.70, weekend 3.35.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.70 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 2/5.

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: 5/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · 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 Twin Falls Transitional Care of Cascadia. 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
Cascadia HC Group LLCOrganizationIndirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE06/05/2025
Cascadia Healthcare LLCOrganizationIndirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE06/01/2020
Cascadia Holdco LLCOrganizationIndirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE06/05/2025
Cascadia Idaho Operations LLCOrganizationDirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE06/01/2020
Hammond, OwenIndividualIndirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE06/01/2020
Laforte, StephenIndividualIndirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE06/05/2025
Nelson, TimothyIndividualIndirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE06/05/2025
Cascadia Services LLCOrganizationOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE05/13/2016
Cascadia Services LLCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE07/14/2025
Dopp, MatthewIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE05/13/2016
Dopp, MatthewIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE02/12/2025
Hammond, OwenIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE06/01/2020
Laforte, StephenIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE06/05/2025
Nelson, TimothyIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE06/05/2025
Timberline Ohi Tenant LLCOrganization5% or Greater Security InterestNOT APPLICABLE06/05/2025
Timberline Ohi Tenant LLCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE06/05/2025
White Oak Healthcare Finance LLCOrganization5% or Greater Security InterestNOT APPLICABLE08/11/2022
Wilcox, SawyerIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE05/13/2016
Wilcox, SawyerIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE02/12/2025

All 19 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 Cascadia Healthcare — 46 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 45 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.

  • "Are staff on every shift trained and certified in CPR, and how do they know each resident's resuscitation wishes?"
  • "Tell me about this abuse or neglect citation — what happened, and what specific changes did you make afterward?"
  • "If someone reports suspected abuse or neglect here, what happens in the first 24 hours?"
  • "How do you prevent bedsores for residents who can't move themselves, and how often are at-risk residents repositioned?"
  • "How do you assess and manage residents' pain, especially for those who have trouble communicating?"
  • "How do you record and honor each resident's treatment wishes and advance directives, and how do staff know about them?"
  • "Who completes resident assessments here, and how do you check them for accuracy?"
  • "How do you identify and arrange specialized services for residents with mental health conditions or disabilities?"

Also worth asking anywhere

  • "Your weekend nurse staffing is reported below the Idaho 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 45% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
  • "The ownership record on file lists 19 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 (within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Serenity Transitional Care3.3 miTwin Falls, ID★★★☆☆2/5
Oak Creek Rehabilitation Center of Kimberly4.2 miKimberly, ID★☆☆☆☆2/5abuse
Bridgeview Estates9.2 miTwin Falls, ID★★★☆☆2/5
Cascades at Desert View15.9 miBuhl, ID★☆☆☆☆1/5SFF

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Twin Falls →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 135104.

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