COTTAGE GROVE POST ACUTE
Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.
Cottage Grove Post Acute has a Trust Grade of F, which indicates significant concerns about the quality of care provided. Ranking #83 out of 127 facilities in Oregon places it in the bottom half of nursing homes in the state, and #6 out of 13 in Lane County means only five local options are better. The facility's situation is worsening, with the number of reported issues increasing from 8 in 2024 to 10 in 2025. While the staffing rating is below average at 2 out of 5 stars and has a high turnover rate of 59%, it is a positive sign that the facility has not received any fines, suggesting some level of compliance with regulations. However, serious incidents have occurred, such as a resident not receiving pain medication for three days, leading to narcotic withdrawal, and another resident developing a severe pressure ulcer due to inadequate care planning and assessments. Overall, while there are some strengths, the weaknesses and troubling trends raise significant concerns for potential residents and their families.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Oregon
- #83/127
- Safety Record
- Moderate
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 59% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Oregon facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 15 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Oregon. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 26 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in fire safety.
The Bad
Below Oregon average (3.0)
Below average - review inspection findings carefully
13pts above Oregon avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
11 points above Oregon average of 48%
The Ugly 26 deficiencies on record
Jun 2025
10 deficiencies
1 Harm
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
Deficiency F0697
(Tag F0697)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide appropriate pain management for 2 of 2 sampled residents (#s 33 and 39) reviewed for pain management...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Notification of Changes
(Tag F0580)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to notify the physician of the resident's discharge to the hospital for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#39)reviewed for hospitaliza...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to exercise reasonable care for the protection of the resident's property from loss or theft for 1 of 2 sampled ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0628
(Tag F0628)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure appropriate information was communicated to the receiving health care institution or provider prior to a resident b...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0637
(Tag F0637)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to complete a Significant Change MDS assessment (SCSA) within the required 14 days after a determination of a significant cha...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0655
(Tag F0655)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to complete a baseline care plan within 48 hours of a resident's admission for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#32) re...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
2. Resident 38 was admitted to the facility in 2/2025 with a diagnoses including hypertensive heart disease with heart failure (a condition where the heart cannot pump blood effectively).
Physician or...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Assessments
(Tag F0636)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to complete timely MDS assessments for 4 of 8 sampled residents (#s 20, 21, 32, and 33) reviewed for MDS and unnecessary medi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0804
(Tag F0804)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide palatable food to 1 of 1 kitchen and 2 of 4 (#s 4 and 33) residents reviewed for food and kitchen ta...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to follow infection control standards f...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2024
2 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0602
(Tag F0602)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure resident pain medication was not misappropr...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to store narcotic pain medications in a safe manner. This placed residents at risk for misappropriation of medications. Findi...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2024
6 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0655
(Tag F0655)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to complete a baseline care plan within 48 hours of a resident's admission for 1 of 2 sampled residents (#253) reviewed for r...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
2. Resident 15 admitted to the facility in 2022 with diagnoses including dementia.
An 4/24/23 care plan indicated Resident 15 had an ADL self-care performance deficit, and staff were to check nail le...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to follow a physician's order for daily weights for 1 of 2 residents (#14) reviewed for respiratory care. This placed residen...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide respiratory care and services in accordance with physician orders for 1 of 2 sampled residents (#253...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0730
(Tag F0730)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure CNA staff annual performance reviews were completed for 5 of 5 sampled CNA staff (#s 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21) review...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0801
(Tag F0801)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review it was determine the facility failed to ensure the dietary manager had current certificatio...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2022
8 deficiencies
1 Harm
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
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to prevent the development of a pressure ulcer, failed to ensure accurate and completed wound assessments, faile...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide assistance with a bedpan for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#91) reviewed for ADLs. This placed residents at risk for sk...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview it was determined the facility failed to provide a clean and well maintained environment for ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
3. Resident 2 admitted to the facility in 2017 with diagnoses including depression.
A 7/8/22 FRI revealed an allegation of verbal abuse from Staff 20 (former agency CNA) towards Resident 2.
An undate...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0658
(Tag F0658)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure professional standards were followed for me...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
3. Resident 2 was admitted to the facility in 2018 with diagnoses including atrial fibrillation (irregular heart rhythm).
A 7/20/22 physician's order revealed Resident 2 took digoxin (medication to tr...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure narcotic records were reconciled based on standards of practice for 3 of 3 halls reviewed for narcotic reconciliati...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0760
(Tag F0760)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure significant medication errors did not occur for 7 of 17 residents (#s 12, 15, 16, 19, 22, 29 and 30) reviewed for m...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "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
- • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Oregon facilities.
- • 26 deficiencies on record, including 2 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
- • Grade F (35/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
- • 59% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
About This Facility
What is Cottage Grove Post Acute's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns COTTAGE GROVE POST ACUTE an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered below average nationally. Within Oregon, 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 Cottage Grove Post Acute Staffed?
CMS rates COTTAGE GROVE POST ACUTE's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 59%, which is 13 percentage points above the Oregon average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 100%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.
What Have Inspectors Found at Cottage Grove Post Acute?
State health inspectors documented 26 deficiencies at COTTAGE GROVE POST ACUTE during 2022 to 2025. These included: 2 that caused actual resident harm and 24 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Cottage Grove Post Acute?
COTTAGE GROVE POST ACUTE 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 PACS GROUP, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 80 certified beds and approximately 60 residents (about 75% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in COTTAGE GROVE, Oregon.
How Does Cottage Grove Post Acute Compare to Other Oregon Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Oregon, COTTAGE GROVE POST ACUTE's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (59%) 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 Cottage Grove Post Acute?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "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?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's high staff turnover rate and the below-average staffing rating.
Is Cottage Grove Post Acute Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, COTTAGE GROVE POST ACUTE has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 2-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Oregon. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.
Do Nurses at Cottage Grove Post Acute Stick Around?
Staff turnover at COTTAGE GROVE POST ACUTE is high. At 59%, the facility is 13 percentage points above the Oregon average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 100%. RNs handle complex medical decisions and coordinate care — frequent RN changes can directly impact care quality. 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 Cottage Grove Post Acute Ever Fined?
COTTAGE GROVE POST ACUTE has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.
Is Cottage Grove Post Acute on Any Federal Watch List?
COTTAGE GROVE POST ACUTE 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.