Avamere Rehabilitation of Eugene: CPR Failure Death - OR

The resident, identified in inspection records only as Resident 3, was not on hospice. Full Code status means one thing in a nursing facility: if a resident's heart stops and they are not already clearly, irreversibly dead, staff attempt to resuscitate them. No rigor mortis is among the clearest possible signs that death is not yet irreversible. The nurse assessed the resident, noted the absence of rigor mortis, and did not initiate a code blue. Did not call for resuscitation. Did not begin CPR.

Nobody did.

The facility opened an internal investigation. That investigation, completed six days after the resident's death, is where the finding about rigor mortis first appears in the record — not in a real-time incident report, not in a code blue log, but buried inside a post-hoc inquiry that concluded almost a week after the resident died.

What the investigation documented was this: when the nurse assessed Resident 3, there was no rigor mortis present. The nurse did not initiate code blue or resuscitation interventions.

The inspection report does not say why.

Oregon requires nursing facilities to report incidents like this to the State Agency within two hours. Avamere did not. The Nursing Facility Reported Incident Form, dated after the fact, showed the incident was reported to the state on a date that fell well outside that window. The inspection report redacts the specific dates to protect confidentiality, but the timeline is clear enough: the death occurred, the facility investigated internally over the following six days, and only then did the report reach state authorities.

On March 30, 2026, an inspector sat down with Staff 26, identified in the report as the Regional Director of Quality Assurance for Avamere. The Regional Director of Quality Assurance confirmed it directly: the facility did not report the incident to the State Agency within the required two-hour timeline.

That confirmation came from the person whose regional job is to ensure quality and compliance across facilities. Not a floor nurse caught off guard. Not a unit manager who misread a policy. The regional quality director confirmed the failure.

The inspection was a complaint survey, meaning someone — a family member, a staff member, another resident, someone — contacted authorities before federal inspectors arrived. The report does not say who filed the complaint or what they reported. It says only that inspectors reviewed one resident for CPR compliance and found what they found.

Avamere Rehabilitation of Eugene is a skilled nursing and rehabilitation facility on Chambers Street in Eugene. The March 2026 inspection cited the facility for failing to timely report an allegation of potential neglect to the state, a deficiency CMS classified as causing minimal harm or potential for actual harm, affecting few residents.

The classification is worth sitting with. "Minimal harm or potential for actual harm" is how federal inspectors categorized the failure to attempt resuscitation on a resident who had no rigor mortis and held a Full Code order. The harm to Resident 3 cannot be undone or measured now. What the classification addresses is the regulatory violation — the reporting failure — not a finding that CPR would have saved the resident's life. The inspection report makes no determination about whether resuscitation would have worked. It makes no determination about what caused the death. It documents what happened procedurally: a Full Code resident was found, a nurse assessed them, no code was called, and the state wasn't told for days.

The two-hour reporting requirement exists for a specific reason. When a facility reports a potential neglect incident promptly, state investigators can respond while evidence is fresh, while witnesses remember what they saw, while the sequence of events can still be reconstructed with some accuracy. A report that arrives days later, after an internal investigation has already been completed and framed, gives the state a much narrower window into what actually happened.

Six days passed between Resident 3's death and the completion of the internal investigation. The report to the state came after that. By the time a complaint brought inspectors through the door, the immediate aftermath was long gone.

The inspection record does not name the nurse who assessed Resident 3 that night. It does not describe what the nurse said about the decision not to call a code. It does not describe what the resident looked like, what time of night the rounds occurred, how long the resident had been unresponsive before being found, or whether anyone else was present. It does not say whether the facility's medical director was notified. It does not say whether the resident's family was contacted, or what they were told, or whether they know what the investigation ultimately found about rigor mortis and the absence of any resuscitation attempt.

What it says is that Resident 3 was admitted in February 2026 with respiratory failure and pneumonia. That the resident was found during routine rounds. That the nurse was notified and confirmed death. That there was no rigor mortis. That no code blue was initiated. That the state was not told for days. That the Regional Director of Quality Assurance acknowledged the timeline failure when asked directly.

Respiratory failure and pneumonia are serious diagnoses, and a resident carrying both is medically fragile. But medically fragile is not the same as hospice. It is not the same as Do Not Resuscitate. Resident 3 had made a documented decision, or someone with authority had made it on their behalf: Full Code. That decision was on file. It was part of the care record. When staff found the resident unresponsive and the nurse found no rigor mortis, that decision was still in effect.

The inspection report does not explain how a facility arrives at a moment where a Full Code resident with no rigor mortis is found, assessed, confirmed dead, and no one calls a code. It does not explain the gap between what the care plan required and what occurred. It records the outcome and the subsequent failure to report it, and it leaves the rest in the space between those two facts.

Resident 3's family, if they read the inspection report, would learn six days after their family member died that the internal investigation documented no rigor mortis at the time of the nurse's assessment. They would learn this from a federal deficiency citation, in redacted bureaucratic language, on a publicly available CMS document.

The inspection report does not say whether anyone told them sooner.

Full Inspection Report

The details above represent a summary of key findings. View the complete inspection report for Avamere Rehabilitation of Eugene from 2026-03-30 including all violations, facility responses, and corrective action plans.

Additional Resources

• View all inspection reports for Avamere Rehabilitation of Eugene
• Browse all OR nursing home inspections