OAK CREEK REHABILITATION CENTER OF KIMBERLY

500 POLK STREET EAST, KIMBERLY, ID 83341 (208) 423-5591
For profit - Limited Liability company 57 Beds CASCADES HEALTHCARE Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
16/100
#64 of 79 in ID
Last Inspection: July 2024

Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.

Overview

Oak Creek Rehabilitation Center of Kimberly has a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns and a poor reputation among nursing homes. It ranks #64 out of 79 facilities in Idaho, which means it is in the bottom half, and #5 out of 5 in Twin Falls County, suggesting there are no better local options available. Although the facility’s trend is improving, with issues decreasing from 8 in 2018 to 2 in 2024, the current staffing situation is troubling, with an 80% turnover rate compared to the state average of 47%, indicating a lack of stability. The facility has received $13,627 in fines, which is concerning and higher than 78% of Idaho facilities, pointing to compliance problems. Specific incidents of concern include a failure to protect a resident from physical and verbal abuse, which placed them in immediate jeopardy, and a lack of proper infection control practices, raising the risk of spreading infections among residents. While there are some quality measures rated good, the overall picture remains troubling due to these significant weaknesses.

Trust Score
F
16/100
In Idaho
#64/79
Bottom 19%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
8 → 2 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
80% turnover. Very high, 32 points above average. Constant new faces learning your loved one's needs.
Penalties
✓ Good
$13,627 in fines. Lower than most Idaho facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 39 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Idaho. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
○ Average
10 deficiencies on record. Average for a facility this size. Mostly minor or procedural issues.
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Overall Rating
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2018: 8 issues
2024: 2 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

2-Star Overall Rating

Below Idaho average (3.3)

Below average - review inspection findings carefully

Staff Turnover: 80%

33pts above Idaho avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Federal Fines: $13,627

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

Chain: CASCADES HEALTHCARE

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

Staff turnover is very high (80%)

32 points above Idaho average of 48%

The Ugly 10 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening 1 actual harm
Jul 2024 2 deficiencies 1 IJ
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on policy review, record review, facility investigation review, and staff interview, the facility failed to prevent physic...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on policy review, record review, facility investigation review, and staff interview, the facility failed to prevent physical abuse, verbal abuse, and neglect for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #15) reviewed for abuse. This deficient practice placed Resident #15 in immediate jeopardy of serious harm, impairment, or death when the facility did not protect him from physical and verbal abuse and neglect from LPN #1. Findings include: The facility's Abuse policy, undated, stated residents are to be free from abuse, neglect misappropriation of resident property, and exploitation. The policy further stated staff or management accused employees were immediately removed from resident contact and suspended from duty. Resident #15 was admitted on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including personal history of a traumatic brain injury. A quarterly MDS assessment, dated 5/17/24, documented Resident #15 was severely cognitively impaired. Resident #15's care plan, dated 5/17/24, documented he had behaviors related to repetitive episodes of putting himself on the floor requiring assistance from staff to get him up had increased and had become more difficult for the staff, taking two staff members and sometimes a third staff member. The care plan documented before the staff left the area, Resident #15 would put himself on the floor again. The care plan further documented Resident #15 did not assist the staff to get him up; however, at times he was witnessed getting off the floor and back into his wheelchair. Interventions included activities and using a mechanical lift to get Resident #15 off the floor. A facility investigation report, undated, documented an incident occurred on 2/28/24. The report documented NA #1 was assisting LPN #1 to get Resident #15 off the floor and back into his wheelchair. LPN #1 attached the [gait] belt [an assistance safety device that can be used to help a patient sit, stand, or walk around, as well as to transfer them from a bed to a wheelchair] around Resident #15's chest to get him up and she was yelling at him to get up and get on his feet. NA #1 went to grab him under his arm to help him and LPN #1 said no, he can do it, he knows how. After about a minute of LPN #1 pulling on Resident #15 and yelling, LPN #1 said, I'm not [expletive] doing this tonight and proceeded to pull him to the floor and as she was doing so, he hit his head on the door frame of his room as a result of her being rough and yanking him around. LPN #1 took the belt off, grabbed under his arms and pulled him part way into his room. He was holding his head in pain and LPN #1 said to NA #1 to leave him there. NA #1 did as she was told and left the room. NA #1 returned 45 minutes later to check on Resident #15 who was still on the floor. Resident #15 was soaked in urine and his shirt was pulled over his head. The shirt was soaked in saliva. NA #1 called for help to change Resident #15 and put him to bed. The investigation report documented the incident was reported to Human Resources on 2/29/24 by NA #1. The conclusion of the investigation documented abuse could not be substantiated. The facility investigation report documented the former Administrator was unable to substantiate. The RVP presented a copy of the former Administrator's email to the staffing agency that employed LPN #1 dated 3/1/24 at 7:54 PM, documenting the former Administrator wrote I want to terminate LPN #1's contract due to verbal abuse. During an interview on 7/3/24 at 5:19 PM, the RVP stated she thought the former Administrator thought that LPN #1 was overwhelmed. She did not have an explanation as to why the facility investigation did not substantiate abuse, however the email indicated verbal abuse did occur. During an interview on 7/3/24 at 6:29 PM, RN #1 stated when she came on duty at 6:00 AM on 2/29/24, NA #1, NA #2 and NA #3 approached her and reported what happened the night before (2/28/24). RN #1 stated that she, NA #2, and NA #3 wrote a statement, and the statements were given to the former Administrator. During a follow up interview on 7/3/24 at 6:47 PM, the RVP stated there was no documentation regarding a physical assessment or monitoring of Resident #15 after the incident. Resident #15 was not sent to the hospital emergency room for an evaluation. The RVP was unsure whether the attending physician was notified, and there was no incident report. The RVP stated they knew RN #1 had completed an assessment of Resident #15 but did not document the assessment because the former Administrator told RN #1 that she would take care of it. During an interview on 7/3/24 at 7:00 PM, the HR Personnel stated she recalled NA #1 reported the incident on 2/29/24 to her. She asked NA #1 to write a statement then she took it to the former Administrator personally. During an interview on 7/4/24 at 12:23 PM, NA #1 confirmed she did not report the incident that occurred on 2/28/24 until the next morning, 2/29/24. On 7/4/24, an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was determined at Past Non-Compliance for the facility's failure to ensure residents were safe from abuse by a staff member. The IJ was determined to exist on 2/28/24 when Resident #15 was verbally abused, physically abused, and neglected by LPN #1. The IJ was removed on 6/25/24. On 7/4/24 at 5:40 PM, the survey team notified the Administrator and DON of the Immediate Jeopardy and provided them a copy of the CMS Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) Template. On 7/4/24 at 7:30 PM, the facility provided a copy of their Corrective Action Plan. The facility's actions included the following: - LPN #1 was terminated on 3/1/24. No statement obtained. Agency notified. - NA #1 was educated on abuse and when and how to report it according to the report. - The former Administrator's employment was terminated on 5/8/24. Steps taken by Current Administrator since 5/13/24: - On 5/24/24, the Administrator had mandatory all staff in-service and included in the agenda was Grievance policy and procedure, Abuse Coordinator, types of abuse and abuse reporting policy. - On 6/1/24, information was placed in common areas with Key Personnel that specifically named Current Administrator as abuse coordinator and phone number. - On 6/2/24, 27 residents were interviewed and asked if they felt safe and who they report concerns to. If they did not know, they were educated. - On 6/6/24, Abuse Training education was placed in the information book. - On 6/25/24, a QAPI [Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement] meeting was held. Reviewed Reportable incidents and grievances with Medical Director and Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) were reviewed. - On 7/4/24 at 8:30 PM, the survey team validated that the facility removed the IJ on 6/25/24 before the survey entrance. There were no other instances of abuse to residents after 6//24/24. Therefore, the facility was cited at IJ at F600, at past non-compliance, and found to be in compliance as of 6/25/24.
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on policy review, record review, facility investigation review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on policy review, record review, facility investigation review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to report an allegation of physical and verbal abuse and neglect to the State Survey Agency. This was true for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #15) reviewed for abuse. This failure resulted in harm to Resident #15 when the allegation of physical and verbal abuse was not acted on in a timely manner, investigated, and measures implemented to protect residents during the investigation. Findings include: The facility's Abuse policy, undated, stated, All alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source and misappropriate of resident property, and exploitation are reported immediately, but not later than two hours after the allegation is made, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury or not later than 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serious bodily injury, to the administrator of the facility and to other officials (including the State Survey Agency and adult protective services where State law provides for jurisdiction in long-term care facilities) in accordance with State law through established procedures. Resident #15 was admitted on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including personal history of a traumatic brain injury. A quarterly MDS assessment, dated 5/17/24, documented Resident #15 was severely cognitively impaired. A facility investigation report, undated, documented an incident occurred on 2/28/24. The report documented NA #1 was assisting LPN #1 to get Resident #15 off the floor and back into his wheelchair. LPN #1 attached the [gait] belt [an assistance safety device that can be used to help a patient sit, stand, or walk around, as well as to transfer them from a bed to a wheelchair] around Resident #15's chest to get him up and she was yelling at him to get up and get on his feet. NA #1 went to grab him under his arm to help him and LPN #1 said no, he can do it, he knows how. After about a minute of LPN #1 pulling on Resident #15 and yelling, LPN #1 said, I'm not [expletive] doing this tonight and proceeded to pull him to the floor and as she was doing so, he hit his head on the door frame of his room as a result of her being rough and yanking him around. LPN #1 took the belt off, grabbed under his arms and pulled him part way into his room. He was holding his head in pain and LPN #1 said to NA #1 to leave him there. NA #1 did as she was told and left the room. NA #1 returned 45 minutes later to check on Resident #15 who was still on the floor. Resident #15 was soaked in urine and his shirt was pulled over his head. The investigation report documented the incident was reported by NA #1 to the facility's HR personnel on 2/29/24, the day after the incident occurred. During an interview on 7/3/24 at 6:29 PM, RN #1 stated when she came on duty at 6:00 AM on 2/29/24 (the next day), NA #1, NA #2 and NA #3 reported what happened the evening before. RN #1 stated that she, NA #2, and NA #3 wrote a statement, and the statements were given to the former Administrator. During an interview on 7/4/24 at 12:23 PM, NA #1 confirmed that she did not report the alleged incident until the next morning, 2/29/24. On 7/4/24 at 7:30 PM, the facility provided a copy of their Corrective Action Plan. The facility's actions included the following: Steps taken by Current Administrator since 5/13/24: - On 5/24/24, the Administrator had mandatory all staff in-service and included in the agenda was Grievance policy and procedure, Abuse Coordinator, types of abuse and abuse reporting policy. - On 6/1/24, information was placed in common areas with Key Personnel that specifically named Current Administrator as abuse coordinator and phone number. - On 6/2/24, 27 residents were interviewed and asked if they felt safe and who they report concerns to. If they did not know, they were educated. - On 6/6/24, Abuse Training education was placed in the information book. - On 6/25/24, a QAPI [Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement] meeting was held. Reviewed Reportable incidents and grievances with Medical Director and Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) were reviewed. The survey team validated the Corrective Action Plan was in place before the survey entrance and there were no further instances of failure to report alleged abuse to the State Agency. Therefore, the facility was cited at Past Non-Compliance and was found to be in compliance as of 6/25/24.
Jan 2018 8 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0558 (Tag F0558)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents' call light...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents' call lights were within reach and could be used when needed. This was true for 1 of 12 (#6) sample residents reviewed for call light accessibility. This created the potential for harm if Resident #6 could not summon staff for assistance when needed. Findings include: Resident #6 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses, including contractures and quadriplegia. The annual MDS assessment, dated 10/24/17, documented Resident #6 was severely cognitively impaired and dependent on staff for all care needs. The Room Change Care Plan, dated 12/5/17, documented Resident #6 utilized a call light to notify staff of his needs. On 1/8/18 from 4:00 PM to 4:22 PM, Resident #6 was observed lying in bed. Resident #6's bed was positioned against the wall, and there was an end table at the foot of his bed. Resident #6's call light was placed on top of the end table; which was approximately 6 feet from his reach. At 4:23 PM, CNA #6 and CNA #1 assisted Resident #6 with cares, and placed the call light within his reach before leaving the room. On 1/8/18 at 4:43 PM, Resident #6 activated his call light and it was answered by CNA #5. On 1/9/18 from 9:15 AM to 10:00 AM, Resident #6's call light was located approximately three feet from his reach. At 10:00 AM, CNA #7 entered Resident #6's room to offer him fluids. Before leaving Resident #6's room, CNA #7 located his call light, and discovered the cord could not extend to where he could access the call light. CNA #7 moved Resident #6's bed closer to the wall where the call light was plugged in for accessibility. On 1/11/18 from 1:00 PM to 1:21 PM, Resident #6 was lying in bed with his call light located half-way down his stomach, and out of his reach. At 1:21 PM, the DON repositioned his call light and stated, the call light was probably not in his reach. On 1/11/18 at 1:25 PM, the DON stated call lights were used so residents could get help when they need it, and needed to be accessible.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview, and record review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure professional standards...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview, and record review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure professional standards of practice were followed for 2 of 15 sampled residents (#15 and #22). Resident #15's medications were administered via G-tube without checking for tube placement prior to administration of medications or feedings, and medications were mixed and administered together. Resident #22's neurological assessment was not completed after an unwitnessed fall. These failed practices had the potential to adversely affect or harm residents whose cares were not delivered according to accepted standards of clinical practices. Findings include: Nursing Interventions and Clinical Skills ([NAME], [NAME], [NAME], 3rd Ed.) documented each medication should be individually dissolved in water and administered by syringe via gravity into a G-tube. The G-tube should be flushed with 10 ml of water before and after each medication. The facility's Administering Medications through an Enteral Tube policy and procedure, dated 1/1/16, included, With gloves on, check for proper tube placement using air and auscultation only. Administer each medication separately and flush the tubing between each medication. Flush tube with 15 ml of purified or sterile water between each medication. 1. Resident #15 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses, including dysphagia related to a stroke. Resident #15's Medication Review Report, dated 1/4/18, documented staff were to 1) check tube placement of peg tube via auscultation prior to medications, feedings, and water administration; and 2) flush peg tube with 30 ml water before and after each medication administration. On 1/10/18 at 12:00 PM, LPN #1 was not observed to check for G-tube placement for Resident #15 prior to medication administration. On 1/10/18 at 12:00 PM, LPN #1 stated she checked for tube placement on Resident 15's G-tube before and after feedings only. On 1/10/18 at 2:45 PM, LPN #1 was not observed to check Resident #15's G-tube placement prior to medication administration. LPN #1 was observed flushing Resident #15's G-tube with 60 ml water, administering Ativan 0.5 mg and Neurontin 100 mg together in 30 ml of water, and flushing the G-tube with 60 ml of water. On 1/10/18 at 2:45 PM, LPN #1 stated she mixed Resident #15's Ativan and Neurontin together because it was okay to do so. On 1/10/18 at 5:30 PM, LPN #1 was not observed to check for tube placement prior to tube feeding administration. On 1/10/18 at 5:30 PM, LPN #1 stated, I forgot to check for tube placement. On 1/11/18 at 1:45 PM, the DON stated the nurses should always check tube placement prior to administering medications, water flushes, and feedings. The DON stated medications should be administered separately, and never mix medications together. 2. Resident #22 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses including Huntington's disease. An Incident and Accident Report, dated 1/1/18 at 1:28 AM, documented Resident #22 was found in her bedroom sitting on the floor mat with her back leaning against the side of the bed. A Neurological Assessment was initiated at 1:30 AM. The entries for 7:00 AM, 8:00 AM, and 9:00 AM were blank. The facility's Neurological Assessment policy and procedure, revision date 8/9/17, documented staff were to conduct neurological assessments every 15-minutes for an hour, every 30-minutes for two hours, every hour for five hours, and every 8 hours for 16 hours. On 1/11/18 at 1:50 PM, the DON stated the neurological assessment was not completed for Resident #22.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview, and record review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents' urinary car...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview, and record review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents' urinary care needs were met. This was true for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#3) for Urinary Tract Infections (UTIs). Resident #3 had the potential for harm when she developed recurrent UTIs. Findings include: Resident #3 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses, including a history of UTIs, retention of urine, neuromuscular dysfunction of the bladder, urinary incontinence, malodorous urine, and cystitis. A quarterly MDS assessment, dated 10/18/17, documented Resident #3 was moderately cognitively impaired and was dependent on staff for all care needs. The Urinary Condition Care Plan, revised 11/24/17, documented Resident #3 experienced recurrent UTIs related to malodorous urine, and staff were to encourage fluids throughout the day, and provide cranberry tablets as ordered. The care plan documented Resident #3 was to receive assistance from staff after each incontinence episode to ensure proper pericare was provided. Resident #3 experienced multiple UTIs requiring antibiotic therapy and/or hospitalization: a. Urinalysis (UA) result from 10/20/17 documented Resident #3's urine appeared red and cloudy and contained blood, other proteins, nitrites, and bacteria. Resident #3's culture and sensitivity (C&S) result, dated 10/22/17, documented the presence of Escherichia Coli (E. coli). A 10/22/17 Physician's Order directed staff to treat Resident #3's UTI with Augmentin 500-125 mg twice daily for ten days. b. A 12/17/17 Change of Condition Form documented Resident #3's urine was yellow with some odor. A 12/24/17 Nurse's Note documented Resident #3 experienced a change in condition of increased temperature and heart rate, and was transferred to the hospital. The Hospital Discharge summary, dated [DATE], documented Resident #3's C&S results contained the presence of E. coli. On 1/12/18 at 8:50 AM, the ADON stated clinically most E. coli UTIs were due to a lack of proper pericare. The ADON stated staff were to perform Resident #3's pericare minimally every two hours and he hoped this process was being completed appropriately. The ADON stated Resident #3 was on cranberry tablets and staff encouraged fluids to try and prevent UTIs. The ADON stated the facility also encouraged excellent pericare.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based observation, interview, and record review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure a prescription medication label...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based observation, interview, and record review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure a prescription medication label coincided with physician's orders. This was true for 1 of 5 residents (#14) sampled for medication review. This failure created the potential for harm when Resident #14's Lantus dosage and order on the pharmacy label was inconsistent with the physician's orders. Findings include: Resident #14 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses including diabetes. Resident #14's Medication Review Report, dated 1/4/18, documented Lantus 15 units subcutaneously daily. Resident #14's Physician's Order, dated 1/5/18, documented to increase the Lantus to 17 units subcutaneously daily. On 1/10/18 at 12:45 PM, LPN #1 was following the EMAR (Electronic Medication Administration Record) to administer Lantus 17 units subcutaneously to Resident #14. The pharmacy label on the Lantus documented to administer 15 units subcutaneously. On 1/10/18 at 12:45 PM, LPN #1 stated the order was changed to administer 17 units to Resident #14. On 1/12/18 at 11:00 AM, the DON stated the pharmacy label did not coincide with the physician's order.
CONCERN (E)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation and interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure measures were in place to prevent possible cross-contamination a) of dirty to clean areas in the kitchen; b) areas o...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure measures were in place to prevent possible cross-contamination a) of dirty to clean areas in the kitchen; b) areas of the kitchen had cleanable surfaces; and c) prevent pests from entering the kitchen. This affected 14 of 15 (#'s 3-6, 8-11, 14, 16, 18, and 20-22) sampled residents and had the potential to affect all residents who dined in the facility. This failure created the potential for harm if residents contracted food-born illnesses or contagious diseases. Findings include: 1. Kitchen Inspection: On 1/11/18 at 10:27 AM, the kitchen was observed with multiple uncleanable surfaces and pest entry points as follows: * The floor contained three raised cracks, measuring approximately 4 inches in length, and multiple small holes in the floor. * The 20-foot in length white cabinet surfaces, were observed with flaking and missing paint, and a greasy substance covering their surfaces. The wood was exposed in areas; which created a porous surface for bacteria to reside. Approximately 15 feet of the cabinets were observed with a separation of varying degrees between the cabinets and the counter-top. * The counter-top was observed loose at a seam, which created a separation between counter-tops. * Multiple white shelves in the pantry were observed with flaking and missing paint, and a greasy substance covered the surfaces. The wood was exposed in areas which created a porous surface for bacteria to reside. * The wall between the dishroom and the cooking area was observed with flaking and missing paint, and the floor boards contained 2 cracks in the seams approximately 6 inches in length. * Food debris and a layer of dirt was observed under the three-compartment sink. * Small dark pellets resembling mouse droppings, food particles, a grease film, and a dust layer were observed behind the oven and grill. The catch tray for the grill contained approximately a 2-centimeter-thick layer of dust, food particles, and grease. * The floor under the refrigerators contained food debris, dust, and grease spills. An unknown food fragment, approximately 1 inch by 2 inches, which appeared partially eaten on both sides, was observed under the refrigerators. * Baked on food debris and a brown film were observed on at least twenty pots and pans. * Multiple cracks were observed on the ceiling. The longest crack was approximately 20 feet in length, and where it intersected with the wall there was a sag point. * Two exhaust fans were observed without a proper seat. One of the fans had approximately a 2 inch by 4 inch opening where a pest could potentially enter the kitchen. * The windows in the kitchen were observed without a proper seal where a pest could potentially enter. Each of the surfaces described above presented potential areas for bacterial growth, pest entry, and subsequent spread of food-born illnesses. On 1/11/18 at 11:06 AM, the CDM stated the cabinets, walls, and shelves outlined above, were not cleanable. The CDM stated the food debris, food particles, and grease should be cleaned up. The CDM stated she was unsure if the floor, walls, and ceiling had water damage, however, the cracks were entry points for liquids. The CDM stated the window did not seal and this was a potential entry point for pests. 2. Dishware Washing: On 1/11/18 at 9:20 AM, [NAME] #1 was observed during the dishwashing process wearing gloves and a disposable apron. [NAME] #1 cleaned the soiled dishes, and sent them through the dishwasher. [NAME] #1 entered the clean dishware side of the area without taking her gloves and apron off, and without performing hand hygiene. The CDM in Training, present during the observation, stated this was not the correct procedure for cleaning dishware. She stated [NAME] #1 should have taken her gloves off, washed her hands, and removed her apron before touching the clean dishware.
CONCERN (E)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0925 (Tag F0925)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview the facility failed ensure the kitchen was free from pests. This affected 14 of 15 (#'s 3-6, 8-11, 14, 16, 18, and 20-22) sampled residents and all residents who dined ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview the facility failed ensure the kitchen was free from pests. This affected 14 of 15 (#'s 3-6, 8-11, 14, 16, 18, and 20-22) sampled residents and all residents who dined in the facility. This had the potential for psychosocial from potential infestation of pests. Findings include: On 1/11/18 at 10:27 AM, the kitchen was observed with multiple pest entry points as follows: * The floor boards in the dishroom contained 2 cracks in the seams, approximately 6 inches in length. * Small dark pellets resembling mouse droppings, food particles, a grease film, and a dust layer were observed behind the oven and grill. * The floor under the refrigerators contained an unknown food fragment, approximately 1 inch by 2 inch, which appeared partially eaten on both sides. * Two exhaust fans were observed without a proper seat. One of the fans had approximately a 2 inch by 4 inch opening where pests could potentially enter the kitchen. * The windows in the kitchen were observed without a proper seal where pests could potentially enter. Each of the areas described above presented potential areas for pests to enter and food for the pest to eat. On 1/11/18 at 11:06 AM, the CDM stated the food debris, food particles, were potential food for pests. The CDM stated the window did not seal and this was a potential entry point for pests. On 1/12/18 at 1:10 PM, the Maintenance Director stated a routine visit had been conducted by their pest control company recently, and stated he would schedule a spot visit for the following week.
CONCERN (F)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview, and policy review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure infection control measures were consistently implemented. This was true for 2 of 15 sampled resident...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and policy review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure infection control measures were consistently implemented. This was true for 2 of 15 sampled residents (#6 and #16), when staff failed to perform effective hand hygiene during resident cares, and failed to practice universal precautions for 13 random residents observed during meal service in the dining room. These failures created the potential for harm if infections spread among residents. Findings include: 1. Hand hygiene observations during cares and interviews: On 1/8/18 at 4:38 PM, CNA #1 and CNA #6 were observed assisting Resident #16 with pericare, the CNAs took turns from their respective sides. CNA #6 removed her gloves after completing pericare, entered Resident #16's bathroom, applied soap to her hands, ran her hands under the water for 5 seconds before turning off the water, and dried her hands. CNA #6 left the room to acquire a Hoyer lift and CNA #2 replaced CNA #6 in Resident #16's room. On 1/8/18 at 5:00 PM, CNA #1 and CNA #2 were observed assisting Resident #16 out of bed with a mechanical lift and stopped due to Resident #16's pants were saturated again. The CNAs laid Resident #16 down to perform pericare again, each from their respective sides. CNA #1 and CNA #2 donned gloves and assisted Resident #16 with pericare. CNA #1 removed her soiled gloves and placed new gloves on her hands, without first performing hand hygiene, and assisted Resident #16 put on undergarments. CNA #2 did not remove her soiled gloves or perform hand hygiene until after the CNAs had clothed Resident #16. CNA #2 entered Resident #16's bathroom, applied soap to her hands, ran her hands under the water for 7 seconds before turning off the water, and dried her hands. During the observation, CNA #1 was observed coughing on to her wrist, and continued with cares without hand hygiene or changing gloves. CNA #1 was observed coughing again and not covering her mouth. CNA #1 was facing Resident #16. On 1/10/18 at 10:58 AM, CNA #4 and CNA #3 were observed assisting Resident #6 with pericare. CNA #3 and CNA #4 donned gloves and assisted Resident #16 with pericare, the CNAs took turns from their respective sides. CNA #4 removed her gloves after completing pericare, entered Resident #6's bathroom, applied soap to her hands, ran her hands under the water for 8 seconds before turning off the water, and dried her hands. CNA #3 did not remove her soiled gloves or perform hand hygiene until the CNAs clothed Resident #6. CNA #3 removed her gloves, exited the room, utilized hand sanitizer in the hall, where she rubbed the palms of her hands together three times, and then wrung her hands in the air. CNA #3 then went to a sink in the small dining room, and applied soap to her hands, ran her hands under the water for 4 seconds before turning off the water, and dried her hands. On 1/12/18 at 8:50 AM, the ADON stated the proper process to complete pericare was as follows: * wash hands and put gloves on, * perform pericare, wiping from front to back, * remove gloves after pericare, and * then perform hand hygiene and reapply clean gloves. The ADON stated staff were encouraged to utilize soap and water when performing hand hygiene. The ADON stated staff were to wash their hands for 20 seconds or more when utilizing soap and water. The ADON stated if staff utilized hand sanitizer they should rub all the surfaces of their hands and continue rubbing until their hand were dry. The ADON stated staff were to perform hand hygiene when transitioning from dirty to clean processes. The ADON stated the observations described above were not appropriate hand hygiene practices. The ADON stated the facility was currently working on their infection control program to ensure hand hygiene practices were performed appropriately and he would increase audits. 2. Hand hygiene observations during dining: On 1/8/18 from 5:35 PM to 5:56 PM, CNA #1, CNA #5, the Activities Director and the DON were observed assisting 10 residents in the dining room with delivering trays, cutting up food, inserting straws into drinks, filling up drinks, and assisting residents with eating without consistent hand hygiene practices. CNA #5 was observed grasping 3 residents' cups by the rim with no hand hygiene practice performed. The Activities Director was observed touching 3 residents' backs, and then inserting straws into other residents' drinks. The Activities Director performed hand hygiene periodically throughout the observations, which lasted for 3 - 8 seconds. CNA #1 was observed assisting two residents to eat without performing hand hygiene between moving from resident to resident. The DON was observed delivering trays and assisted 2 residents with setting up their meals to eat. The DON performed hand hygiene periodically throughout the observations which lasted for 3 seconds. On 1/10/18 from 5:43 PM to 6:04 PM, Registered Nurse [RN] #1 was observed delivering trays, assisting 3 residents with tray set up needs, and then assisted a resident with eating her meal, all without performing hand hygiene. On 1/12/18 at 8:50 AM, the ADON stated staff were encouraged to utilize soap and water when performing hand hygiene. The ADON stated staff were to wash their hands for 20 seconds or more when utilizing soap and water. The ADON stated if staff utilized hand sanitizer they should rub all the surfaces of their hands and continue rubbing until their hand were dry. The ADON stated staff were to perform hand hygiene when transitioning from dirty to clean processes. The ADON stated the observations described above were not appropriate hand hygiene practices.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0577 (Tag F0577)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation and resident and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure complaint investigations for the 3 previous years were available for review. This deficient pract...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and resident and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure complaint investigations for the 3 previous years were available for review. This deficient practice affected 5 of 5 residents in group and all other residents or their representative or visitors who may want to review the survey results. Findings include: On 1/9/18 at 1:15 PM, 5 of 5 residents in a group interview did not know where the survey results were located in the facility. On 01/10/18 at 2:00 PM, the survey results binder was observed at the main nurse's station. The binder contained the most recent recertification survey the facility had undergone on 9/23/16. During the same observation on 1/10/18 at 2:00 PM, in front of the survey binder, documented the last 3 years of surveys were available upon request. The survey binder did not include the complaint investigations on 4/13/17, 7/21/17, and 10/4/17. On 1/11/18 at 1:14 PM, the Administrator was informed of the lack of complaint investigations in 2017 were not available to review in the survey binder, and residents residing in the facility did not know where the survey binder was located.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

  • "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
  • "What safeguards are in place to prevent abuse and neglect?"
  • "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: Federal abuse finding, 1 life-threatening violation(s), 1 harm violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 10 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $13,627 in fines. Above average for Idaho. Some compliance problems on record.
  • • Grade F (16/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: This facility has a substantiated abuse finding. Extreme caution advised. Explore alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Oak Creek Rehabilitation Center Of Kimberly's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns OAK CREEK REHABILITATION CENTER OF KIMBERLY an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered below average nationally. Within Idaho, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.

How is Oak Creek Rehabilitation Center Of Kimberly Staffed?

CMS rates OAK CREEK REHABILITATION CENTER OF KIMBERLY's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 80%, which is 33 percentage points above the Idaho average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs.

What Have Inspectors Found at Oak Creek Rehabilitation Center Of Kimberly?

State health inspectors documented 10 deficiencies at OAK CREEK REHABILITATION CENTER OF KIMBERLY during 2018 to 2024. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 1 that caused actual resident harm, 7 with potential for harm, and 1 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Oak Creek Rehabilitation Center Of Kimberly?

OAK CREEK REHABILITATION CENTER OF KIMBERLY is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by CASCADES HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 57 certified beds and approximately 36 residents (about 63% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in KIMBERLY, Idaho.

How Does Oak Creek Rehabilitation Center Of Kimberly Compare to Other Idaho Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Idaho, OAK CREEK REHABILITATION CENTER OF KIMBERLY's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 3.3, staff turnover (80%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Oak Creek Rehabilitation Center Of Kimberly?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "What safeguards and monitoring systems are in place to protect residents from abuse or neglect?" "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations, the substantiated abuse finding on record, the facility's high staff turnover rate, and the below-average staffing rating.

Is Oak Creek Rehabilitation Center Of Kimberly Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, OAK CREEK REHABILITATION CENTER OF KIMBERLY has documented safety concerns. The facility has 1 substantiated abuse finding (meaning confirmed case of resident harm by staff or other residents). Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 2-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Idaho. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Oak Creek Rehabilitation Center Of Kimberly Stick Around?

Staff turnover at OAK CREEK REHABILITATION CENTER OF KIMBERLY is high. At 80%, the facility is 33 percentage points above the Idaho average of 46%. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?

Was Oak Creek Rehabilitation Center Of Kimberly Ever Fined?

OAK CREEK REHABILITATION CENTER OF KIMBERLY has been fined $13,627 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Idaho average of $33,215. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.

Is Oak Creek Rehabilitation Center Of Kimberly on Any Federal Watch List?

OAK CREEK REHABILITATION CENTER OF KIMBERLY is not on any federal watch list. The most significant is the Special Focus Facility (SFF) program, which identifies the bottom 1% of nursing homes nationally based on persistent, serious quality problems. Not being on this list means the facility has avoided the pattern of deficiencies that triggers enhanced federal oversight. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review the facility's inspection history directly.