ROGUE VALLEY MANOR
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Rogue Valley Manor in Medford, Oregon has a Trust Grade of B+, indicating it is above average and recommended for families seeking care for their loved ones. It ranks #27 out of 127 facilities in the state and #2 out of 4 in Jackson County, placing it in the top half locally. However, the facility's trend is worsening, with issues increasing from 4 in 2024 to 6 in 2025. Staffing is rated 4 out of 5 stars, but the turnover rate is 57%, which is average for Oregon, so while staff are experienced, there is some instability. On a positive note, there have been no fines, and the facility boasts excellent RN coverage, better than 96% of Oregon facilities, which is crucial for resident care. However, there are notable concerns. Recent inspections revealed issues such as outdated food in the kitchen, with items like expired sauces and cooked rice, which risks foodborne illnesses. Additionally, staff were observed not properly wearing hair restraints while handling food, and there have been instances of minimal interaction between staff and residents during meals, which can affect the dining experience and overall well-being. These strengths and weaknesses should be carefully considered when researching this nursing home.
- Trust Score
- B+
- In Oregon
- #27/127
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 57% 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 ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 103 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than 97% of Oregon nursing homes. RNs are the most trained staff who catch health problems before they become serious.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 19 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
-
5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
10pts above Oregon avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
9 points above Oregon average of 48%
The Ugly 19 deficiencies on record
Apr 2025
6 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0553
(Tag F0553)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to offer residents the opportunity to participate in the care planning process for 1 of 5 sampled residents (#6) reviewed for...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0565
(Tag F0565)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to effectively respond to resident council concerns expressed at 3 of 4 resident council meetings reviewed. This placed resi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0578
(Tag F0578)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to obtain information related to advance directives and health care decisions for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#177) reviewed f...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0679
(Tag F0679)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide meaningful activities for dependent residents for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#3) reviewed for activiti...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were free from unnecessary psychotropic medication for 1 of 5 sampled residents (#177) revi...
Read full inspector narrative →
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, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure food was properly stored and discarded in a timely manner, kitchen staff wore appropriate hair and beard restraints, and...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2024
4 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Investigate Abuse
(Tag F0610)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to investigate an injury of unknown source for 1 of 4 sampled residents (#20) reviewed for pressure ulcers. This...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to revise a care plan timely related to ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to thoroughly assess pressure ulcers for...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 refrigerators were free of expired and/or unlabeled foods for 1 of 2 refrigerators reviewed for food safety and sanit...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2023
9 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
Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were free from misappropriation of property for 2 of 2 sampled residents (#s 129 and 130) reviewed for mi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to revise care plans for 1 of 2 sampled resident (#24) reviewed for ADLs. This placed residents at risk for unme...
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 observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to follow the baseline care plan for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#179) reviewed for nutrition. This placed resident...
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
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure controlled medication records were in order for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#129) reviewed for misappropriation of pro...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Drug Regimen Review
(Tag F0756)
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 follow up on pharmacy recommendations for 1 of 6 s...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation and interview it was determined the facility failed to provide a homelike dining experience for 1 of 2 dining rooms reviewed for dining. This placed residents at risk for a non-ho...
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
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to report allegations of abuse and misappropriation of property for 3 of 3 sampled residents (#s 12, 129 and 130) reviewed fo...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 5. Resident 16 was admitted to the facility in 2020 with diagnoses including pain and dementia.
The medication reference site ep...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0883
(Tag F0883)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure influenza vaccinations were administered for 3 of 5 sampled residents (#s 10, 13 and 17) reviewed for immunizations...
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
- • Grade B+ (80/100). Above average facility, better than most options in Oregon.
- • No major safety red flags. No abuse findings, life-threatening violations, or SFF status.
- • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Oregon facilities.
- • 19 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
- • 57% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
About This Facility
What is Rogue Valley Manor's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns ROGUE VALLEY MANOR an overall rating of 5 out of 5 stars, which is considered much above average nationally. Within Oregon, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.
How is Rogue Valley Manor Staffed?
CMS rates ROGUE VALLEY MANOR's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 57%, which is 10 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 60%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.
What Have Inspectors Found at Rogue Valley Manor?
State health inspectors documented 19 deficiencies at ROGUE VALLEY MANOR during 2023 to 2025. These included: 19 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates Rogue Valley Manor?
ROGUE VALLEY MANOR is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility is operated by PACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 68 certified beds and approximately 26 residents (about 38% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in MEDFORD, Oregon.
How Does Rogue Valley Manor Compare to Other Oregon Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Oregon, ROGUE VALLEY MANOR's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (57%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Rogue Valley Manor?
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 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?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's high staff turnover rate.
Is Rogue Valley Manor Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, ROGUE VALLEY MANOR 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 5-star overall rating and ranks #1 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 Rogue Valley Manor Stick Around?
Staff turnover at ROGUE VALLEY MANOR is high. At 57%, the facility is 10 percentage points above the Oregon average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 60%. 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 Rogue Valley Manor Ever Fined?
ROGUE VALLEY MANOR 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 Rogue Valley Manor on Any Federal Watch List?
ROGUE VALLEY MANOR 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.