Bend Transitional Care
Bend, Oregon · CCN 385253
14 surveys since 2011. The first finding at harm level was recorded in 2018.
Data as of , released by CMS on October 8, 2026. Source: CMS Provider Data Catalog.
- Citations on record
- 72
- Surveys
- 14
- Harm or worse
- 2
- Immediate jeopardy
- 0
Findings where a surveyor recorded actual harm to a resident.
Older surveys no longer in CMS’s monthly file or on Care Compare. They are shown here.
The facility
- Certified beds
- 60
- Ownership
- For profit - Corporation
- Chain
- CASCADIA HEALTHCARE
- County
- Deschutes
- Medicare-certified since
- 1996
- Ownership changed
- In the last 12 months
CMS ratings
- Overall
- 5
- Health inspection
- 5
- Staffing
- 5
- Quality measures
- 4
CMS’s own Five-Star ratings.
Compared with similar facilities
Not shown for this facility: too few citations in window (n=15, floor 20).
Last survey on record
Jun 27, 2025
500 days ago.
Counts surveys with at least one finding. A clean survey leaves no record here, so the real gap may be shorter.
Staffing
| Measure | This facility | Peer median |
|---|---|---|
| Nurse hours per resident day | 4.79 | 5.00 |
| Registered-nurse hours per resident day | 1.40 | — |
| Annual nurse turnover | 43.4% | 48.4% |
As reported by the facility to CMS, beside the peer-group median.
Enforcement
No fines, payment denials or special-focus designation on the current CMS record.
Severity of recent findings
| Severity | Isolated | Pattern | Widespread |
|---|---|---|---|
| Immediate jeopardy | J— | K— | L— |
| Actual harm | G— | H— | I— |
| No harm, potential for more than minimal | D763.6% | E327.3% | F19.1% |
| No harm, potential for minimal | A— | B— | C— |
In the surveyor’s words
From the most serious findings on record at Bend Transitional Care, in the surveyor’s own words.
- No harm, potential for more than minimal, widespreadF725Feb 10, 2023
Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure sufficient staffing to meet resident care needs for 4 of 5 halls (A, C, D, and E) reviewed for staffing. This placed residents at risk for delayed and unmet care needs. Findings include: On 2/6/23 and 2/9/23 the facility provided lists of residents who: -Required assistance with eating: 2. -Required two-person assistance or a mechanical lift with transfers: 11. -Required one or two-person assistance with dressing and toileting: 43. -Were fully dependent on staff for toileting and dressing: 2. - Required one or two-person assistance with bathing: 45. -Were fully dependent on staff for bathing: 2. -Had behavioral healthcare needs: 5. […]
- No harm, potential for more than minimal, patternF880Jun 27, 2025
Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to implement appropriate Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) and Contact Precautions for 2 of 4 (#s 9 and 401) reviewed for infection control. This placed residents at risk for the spread of infection. Findings include: The CDC's 4/2/24 Implementation of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Use in Nursing Homes to Prevent Spread of Multidrug-Resistant Organisms (MDROs) included to don gown and gloves when high-contact activities were performed. The facility's undated Enhanced Barrier Precautions policy indicated the following: -Staff must clean hands with sanitizer when entering room and leaving room. […]
- No harm, potential for more than minimal, patternF732Mar 7, 2024
Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure the daily staff posting was accurate for 19 out of 50 days reviewed for staffing. This placed residents, public and staff at risk for lack of accurate staffing information. Findings include: On 3/3/23 at 3:30 PM the Direct Care Staff Daily reports were provided from 10/7/23 through 11/10/23 and from 2/2/24 through 3/1/24. The forms revealed 19 instances when portions of the form were left blank or were incomplete. The incomplete information included census, number of staff working and number of hours worked. […]
- No harm, potential for more than minimal, patternF636Feb 10, 2023
Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure MDS assessments were comprehensive for 3 of 9 sampled residents (#s 8, 13 and 15) reviewed for skin, medications, and staffing. This placed residents at risk for inaccurate assessments. Findings include: 1. Resident 13 admitted to the facility in 1/2023 with diagnoses including diabetes. Review of the resident's progress notes indicated the resident was alert and oriented. Resident 13's 1/16/23 Admission MDS, Section C (cognitive assessment) indicated the BIMS was to be conducted. The subsequent assessment questions were marked not assessed. On 2/9/23 at 8:45 AM Staff 2 (DNS) acknowledged Section C was not completed as part of Resident 13's Admission MDS. 2. […]
- No harm, potential for more than minimal, isolatedF883Mar 7, 2024
Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to accurately document immunization choices for 1 of 5 sampled residents (#11) reviewed for immunizations. This placed residents at risk for resident vaccination choices not being followed. Findings include: The facility's 10/2019 Influenza Vaccine Policy revealed: -Employees hired and residents admitted between October 1st and March 31st shall be offered the vaccine within five (5) working days of the employee's job assignment or the resident's admission to the facility. […]
Read 22 findings in full →The most serious and the most recent: 22 of 72 on record.
Every survey on record
FindingsAt actual harm or above
- Jun 27, 2025Standard1 finding
- Mar 7, 2024Standard and complaint2 findings
- Feb 10, 2023Standard8 findings
- Mar 17, 2021Complaint4 findings
- Jul 31, 2019Complaint2 findings
- Apr 12, 2019Complaint2 findings
- Dec 3, 2018Complaint1 finding
- Sep 6, 2018Standard12 findings · 2 harm
Show the 6 earlier surveys
- Jun 5, 2017Standard8 findings
- Apr 22, 2016Standard7 findings
- Mar 23, 2015Standard10 findings
- Nov 7, 2013—3 findings
- Sep 24, 2013—4 findings
- Jun 23, 2011—8 findings
Surveys that found no deficiencies are not in CMS’s files and do not appear here.
Comparable facilities
The nearest facilities to this one in the same peer group, by weighted findings.
Deficiency Index is independent and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or approved by CMS, Medicare, or any government agency. About this data · Report a correction