Royal Plaza Health and Rehabilitation of Cascadia

Location & what’s nearby

Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗

Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.

Quality measures — how residents actually fare

Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.

Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital

Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.

41.6% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that worse than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 91 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 57.5% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 47 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.

Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.42 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 72% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 4% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.

This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.

Staffing

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 76 beds and averages 70.4 residents a day — about 93% occupied, or roughly 6 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.24 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.96 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.01 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.

Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 2.67 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.47 on weekdays — 23% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 1.11 to 0.59 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 53% is about the same as the national median of 45%.

Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.

Inspection trend

Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.

Inspection deficiencies

State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.

Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.

25 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 15 are one tap away and print in full.

• Potential for harm · Fcited before2026-06-26 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespread
  Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observation, review of the FDA Food Code, and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to follow sanitary requirements for food safety, including an appropriate hand washing sink, food sanitation, and appropriate cleaning and storage for resident's freezers. This was true for 76 residents who received food plated and delivered by the facility's meal serving room, and whose personal foods were stored in the residents freezer's. This deficient practice created the potential for harm by placing residents at risk for foodborne illnesses and/or adverse health outcomes. Findings include:1. The FDA Food Code Section 2-301.14 When to Wash documented food employees shall clean their hands immediately before engaging in food preparation including working with exposed food, clean equipment and utensils . (H) before donning gloves to initiate a task that involves working with food.On 6/25/26 at 11:55 AM, the facility's Dietary Manager (DM) brought in the hot food cart and donned gloves without handwashing. He moved the hot food into the steam table and then began to take…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has plan of correction
• Potential for harm · E2026-06-26 · tag F0628 — pattern
  Provide the required documentation or notification related to the resident's needs, appeal rights, or bed-hold policies.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents and/or their representatives were provided with complete facility discharge information. This was true for 3 of 6 residents (#4, #5, and #46) whose records were reviewed for hospital discharges. This failure placed the residents at risk for psychosocial harm, advanced directive misunderstandings, and a lack of medical history if the transferring facility did not receive a completed resident discharge record. Findings include:1. Resident #4 was re-admitted [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD-a progressive lung disease that blocks airflow and makes breathing difficult), congestive heart failure (CHF-a chronic condition where the heart's muscle becomes stiff or weak preventing it from pumping blood efficiently), and depression. On 2/10/26 the facility initiated an emergent discharge/transfer to hospital which identified what paperwork was sent to the hospital.…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has plan of correction
• Potential for harm · E2026-06-26 · tag F0848 — pattern
  Provide a neutral and fair arbitration process and agree to arbitrator and venue.
  What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

  Based on the review of the Facility's Arbitration agreement, CMS SOM Appendix PP, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the facility's arbitration agreement provided the selection of a venue that is convenient to both parties. This was true for all residents who reside in the facility who signed an Arbitration Agreement. This failure created the potential for residents to be inconvenienced or the inability to participate during the arbitration process. Findings include:On 6/24/26 at 4:15 PM, after review of the arbitration agreement and the federal regulation requirement the Administrator stated the arbitration agreement was missing the regulatory requirement of a convenient location of arbitration for both parties.

  Administration Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has plan of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-06-26 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolated
  Honor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
  What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were offered the opportunity to create an advance directive. This was true for 1 of 10 residents (Resident #13) whose advance directive was reviewed. This failure created the potential for Resident #13 to not have their wishes met if they were to require end of life care. Findings include: Resident #13 was re-admitted [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including hypertension, chronic kidney disease (a progressive condition where damaged kidneys lose their ability to filter waste and fluid from the blood), and mild cognitive impairment.On 6/24/26, review of Resident #13's medical record revealed the resident did not have an advance directive on file. On 6/25/26 at 2:43 PM, the Social Service Director stated she did not have documentation education was provided to Resident #13, nor were there attempts to obtain an advance directive.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has plan of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-06-26 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolated
  Protect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure a resident was free from abuse. This was true for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #63) reviewed for abuse. This failure placed Resident #63 at risk for psychosocial harm when a video recording was taken of them during a sensitive moment and the video was shared with people not privileged to Resident #63's protected information. Findings include: Resident #63 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses including dementia with behavioral disturbances, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease. Review of the State Agency Long Term Care Reporting Portal, on 8/12/25 at 9: 50 PM, Resident #63 was video recorded by 1 staff with another staff present. The facility's investigation report documented the description of the video as follows: At approximately 10:00 AM on August 13, 2025, a staff member from the Assisted Living unit at [facility name] presented a video to the Administrator of [Skilled Nursing Facility…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
• Potential for harm · D2026-06-26 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
  Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, CMS SOM Appendix PP, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to create a comprehensive care plan. This was true for 2 of 18 residents (#9 and #19) reviewed for care plan development. This deficient practice had the potential for harm if their care plans were not developed to ensure Resident's and/or their representatives, and facility staff were educated on individual diagnoses, treatment interventions, and treatment outcome goals specific for each resident. Findings include:1. Resident #19 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and readmitted on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including anemia, nutrition deficiency, anorexia, dementia, and depression.A review of Resident #19's care plan dated 1/7/26, included treatment interventions for nutrition decline, but did not include treatment or interventions related to Resident #19's diagnosis of unspecified anemia.On 6/25/26 at 3:01 PM, the CNO stated Resident #19's anemia diagnosis and treatment interventions were not…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has plan of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-06-26 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
  Provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure quality care was provided related to medication administration. This was true for 1 of 7 residents (Resident #35) whose medication regimen records were reviewed. This failure placed Resident #35 at risk for harm if they were to suffer adverse effects from receiving a medication outside the physicians prescribed parameters. Findings include: Resident #35 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] for care following a fall with fracture, with multiple diagnoses including chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia and hypercapnia (high blood carbon dioxide), and hypertension. Resident #35's June 2026 MAR documented the following physicians order, dated 6/12/26:-Losartan Potassium Oral Tablet 50 MG (Losartan Potassium) Give 50 mg by mouth in the morning related to essential (primary) hypertension, HOLD FOR SBP [systolic blood pressure - less than] 100 OR DBP [diastolic blood pressure - less than] 60 (systolic is the top number and…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has plan of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-06-26 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolated
  Provide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were provided respiratory services consistent with professional standards of practice. This was true for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #4) whose respiratory device was not stored properly; and 1 of 2 residents (Resident # 56) reviewed for physician orders for oxygen therapy. This deficient practice created the potential for residents to develop infection and to receive too little or too much oxygen. Findings include: The facility's policy titled, Oxygen Administration, Safety, Storage and Maintenance, revised 10/10/25, stated, The facility will administer, store and maintain oxygen safely in accordance with current standard of practice and licensed practitioner orders. 1. Resident #56 was admitted [DATE] with multiple diagnoses including congestive heart failure, hypertension, and pulmonary hypertension (high blood pressure in the arteries of the lungs).Resident #56's physician's orders included the…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has plan of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-06-26 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolated
  Ensure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, policy review, staff interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure that expired medication was removed from medication storage area and discarded in accordance with professional standards and facility policy. This was true for 1 of 2 medication carts reviewed for medication storage and cart review. This deficient practice had the potential to affect the strength, quality and purity of the medication. Findings include:The facility's policy titled Medication Storage and Labeling, released [DATE] stated, The facility will ensure that medications are stored and labeled in accordance with CMS regulations, state law and acceptable professional principles to ensure safety, efficacy, and compliance. It further stated, Expired or discontinued medications must be removed promptly and disposed of per facility policy and DEA guidelines to prevent diversion.On [DATE] at 10:04 AM, during medication storage and cart review, the surveyor in the presence of RN #3, found a…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has plan of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-06-26 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolated
  Safeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure resident records were complete and accurate. This was true for 1 of 7 residents (Resident #68) whose medication regimen was reviewed. This failure created the potential for poor continuity of care for Resident #68. Findings include: Resident #68 admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including CHF, and bacteremia (the presence of bacteria in the bloodstream). a. Resident #68's June 2026 MAR documented the following physician orders, dated 6/20/26:-Crestor Oral Tablet 10 MG (rosuvastatin calcium) Give 10 mg by mouth at bedtime related to hyperlipidemia-Rosuvastatin Calcium Oral Tablet 10 MG (rosuvastatin calcium) Give 10 mg by mouth at bedtime relatedto hyperlipidemia The order for Crestor was signed as administered on June 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24. The order for rosuvastatin was signed as held due to duplicate therapy on June 20, 21, and 24; on the 22nd and 23rd, the medication was signed as…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has plan of correction

“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to CASCADIA HEALTHCARE — 46 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →

A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.

Who owns this facility

CMS files one row per role, so the 22 rows in the source record cover these 12 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.

7 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.

Follow the money — this home’s finances

Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.

This home reported $316K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.

Cost & finances

Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.

What families pay in ID