Regency At Northpointe
1224 East Westview Court, Spokane, WA 99218 · For profit - Corporation · 120 certified beds · (509) 465-8800 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0607) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- a high number of inspection citations overall (15) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $8,278 in federal fines (most recent 2025-05-09)
- its last standard health inspection was over 2 years ago — the star rating may not reflect current conditions
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
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
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
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.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 22.2% | 14.2% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 6.7% | 5.5% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 2.3% | 1.0% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 2.2% | 1.6% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 17.7% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 1.3% | 2.6% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 38.4% | 17.2% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 13.2% | 12.4% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 93.8% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 6.7% | 4.3% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 18.2% | 22.5% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 3.2% | 15.1% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.7% | 1.3% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 90.7% | 82.0% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 15.0% | 19.9% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 7.7% | 13.4% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.57 | 1.33 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.73 | 1.52 | 1.80 | better |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
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.
55.2% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 265 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 77.0% 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 183 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 0.59 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 88% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 12% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. 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.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 55.2%CMS range 48.2–60.1 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 8.7%CMS range 6.8–11.2 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 77.0% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 72.7% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 73.2% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 99.1% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 97.7% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 97.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 1.8% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 2.6% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 5.9%CMS range 3.6–9.9 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.09 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 120 beds and averages 92.6 residents a day — about 77% occupied, or roughly 27 beds typically open. It usually has some room. 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 4.72 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.97 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.88 is at or above 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 3.79 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.09 on weekdays — 25% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 1.20 to 0.41 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 47% 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.
This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 2 years ago; the arrow describes what inspectors found then, not what the home is like now.
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.
15 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · G2025-05-09 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to consistently assess and adequately follow-up on a change in condition for 1 of 3 sample residents (Resident 1) reviewed for quality of care. Resident 1 experienced harm when there was delay in recognizing a change in condition (elevated heart rate) and notification to the medical provider for treatment decisions that resulted in hospitalization and a diagnosis of sepsis (life-threatening medical emergency). These failures placed residents at risk of infection, hospitalization, and a diminished quality of life. Findings included . Review of the Centers for Disease Control, About Sepsis, dated 03/08/2024 (https://www.cdc.gov/sepsis/about/index.html), showed sepsis is the body's extreme response to an infection, often starting in the gastrointestinal tract, lung, skin or urinary tract. Signs that healthcare providers used to identify sepsis included changes in heart rate and blood pressure. Review of the American Heart Association, Tachycardia: Fast Heart…
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.
- Potential for harm · F2024-08-27 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure 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 and interview, the facility failed to ensure hand hygiene and use of hair coverings was implemented properly during the preparation and serving of food during 2 of 2 kitchen observations. This failure caused exposure of all residents to potential food contamination and food borne illness. Findings included: According to the CDC, Clinical Safety: Hand Hygiene for Healthcare Workers, hands should be cleaned using soap and water or an alcohol-based hand sanitizer immediately before touching a patient, before performing a task such as placing an indwelling device or handling invasive medical devices, before moving from work on a soiled body site to a clean body site on the same patient, after touching a patient or patient's surroundings, after contact with blood, body fluids, or contaminated surfaces, and immediately after glove removal. When washing hands with soap and water the CDC recommends, wet hands with water, apply the soap to the hands, rub hands together vigorously for at least 15 seconds, covering all surfaces of the hands and fingers, rinse hands with…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-27 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft.
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 interview and record review, the facility failed to implement their Abuse and Neglect Prohibition Policies and Procedures to include, not reporting to the State Agency (SA) within the required timeframe and completing a thorough investigation for 1 (Resident 397) of 2 residents reviewed for abuse. This failure placed the resident and other residents at risk for potential abuse or neglect and a diminished quality of life. Findings included . Review of a revised October 2022 facility policy titled Abuse/Neglect/Misappropriation/Exploitation showed, the facility protected the residents from abuse and neglect by implementing procedures designed to prevent, identify, report, and investigate allegations of abuse and neglect. The policy instructed the staff to report immediately to the Abuse Hotline (a SA), but no later than 2 hours after an allegation involving abuse or neglect was made, if the events that caused the allegation resulted in serious bodily injury and no later than 24 hours if the events that…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-27 · tag F0622 — isolatedNot transfer or discharge a resident without an adequate reason; and must provide documentation and convey specific information when a resident is transferred or discharged.
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 interview and record review, the facility failed to identify what information was conveyed to the hospital at the time of transfer for 2 of 2 sampled residents (67, 94) reviewed for hospitalizations. This failure placed the residents at risk for a disruptive and ineffective transition from the facility to the hospital setting. Findings included . <Resident 94> Review of the progress notes showed Resident 94 admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The 07/25/2024 progress notes showed Resident 94 experienced a change in condition, the staff notified the provider, the staff transferred the resident to the hospital, and notified the resident representative. In an interview on 08/27/24 at 9:03 AM, Staff U, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), stated that when a resident is transferred to the hospital, she notifies the Unit Manager, the Director of Nursing (DON), the family, and the doctor. Staff U stated that at the time of a resident's transfer to the hospital, they send with the resident and ambulance personnel…
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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-08-27 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
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, interview and record review, the facility failure to ensure care plan revisions were made for 2 of 17 sampled residents (64, 397) whose care plans were reviewed. Failure to revised Resident 64's care plan to include additional interventions to prevent a further decrease in the ability to flex the fingers, and failure to revised Resident 397's care plan to include their preferences for bathing placed the residents at risk for diminished quality of life and unmet care needs. Findings included . <Resident 64> The 05/31/2024 quarterly assessment documented Resident 64 was severely cognitively impaired, non-verbal, had diagnoses which included stroke, and was dependent on nursing staff for activities of daily living (ADLS) such as dressing. In addition, the assessment documented the resident had impaired range of motion (ROM: the ability to move or flex a joint) to both upper and lower extremities and had received restorative services (a program in which staff work with residents to maintain…
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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-08-27 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident received assistance setting up their meals for 1 of 4 sampled residents (67) reviewed for activities of daily living (ADLs). This failure placed the resident at risk of decreased dietary intake, potential weight loss and decreased quality of life. Findings included . <Resident 67> Review of the 07/26/2024 re-admission assessment documented Resident 67 had diagnoses including paralysis of the right side of the body following a stroke, difficulty speaking and swallowing, and severe calorie malnutrition. Resident 67 was severely cognitively impaired, coughed or choked during meals, held food in their mouth after meals, and required partial to moderate assistance for eating. The 07/06/2024 care plan documented Resident 67 had a deficit related to their ability to eat because of their stroke and a contracture (shortening of muscles and tendons that prevented normal movement) of their right hand. They required assistance of one staff to set up their meals. A 07/12/2024 weight change progress note…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-27 · tag F0685 — isolatedAssist a resident in gaining access to vision and hearing services.
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, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 1 resident (91) reviewed for hearing, received the necessary treatment and services to maintain their hearing abilities. Failure to assess the etiology of and pursue services for Resident 91's identified hearing impairment, placed the resident at risk for a decline in communication, social isolation, changes in mood and behavior, and unmet needs. Findings included . Review of an 08/02/2024 admission assessment showed Resident 91 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with medically complex conditions. This assessment showed the staff identified Resident 91's hearing was highly impaired, used hearing aids, was able to make themself understood, and usually understood others. Staff assessed the resident to have moderate cognitive impairment. The staff assessed Resident 91 required assistance from the staff with most Activities of Daily Living (ADL), like oral hygiene, toileting, bathing, bed mobility, transfers, and dressing. An…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-27 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
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, interview and record review, the facility failed to put measures in place to ensure the staff delivered heat therapy with adequate and complete provider orders, to include monitoring for injury associated with the use of a heating pad, for 1 (Resident 397) of 1 resident reviewed for accidents. This failure placed the resident at risk for trauma associated with the use of a heating pad. Findings included . Review of an 08/16/2024 admission assessment showed Resident 397 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with medically complex conditions. This assessment showed the staff identified Resident 397 as cognitively intact and required assistance from the staff for completing Activities of Daily Living, like dressing, toileting, transfers, and bed mobility. Observations on 8/21/2024 at 10:32 AM, 8/22/2024 at 9:18 AM and 04:13 PM, and 8/23/2024 at 9:52 AM and 11:21 AM, showed a green pad wrapped around Resident 397's thigh while seated in their wheelchair. Resident 397 was fully dressed, to include…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-27 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
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, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure 2 of 2 residents (396 and 397) reviewed for incontinence, received the care and services necessary to maintain and avoid loss of bowel and bladder functions. This failure placed the residents at risk for continued decline in bowel and bladder function, skin issues, and feelings of frustration and embarrassment. Findings included . <Resident 396> A resident observation and interview on 08/21/24 at 09:49 AM with their Collateral Contact present showed, Resident 396 in bed and in a hospital gown. The resident stated it was hard to go to the bathroom and that she go Number 2 [bowel elimination] in their incontinence brief. No commode was nearby. Resident 396 stated that staff did not offer them a bed pan and that its use would be, more comfortable, less painful. Resident 396 described that when they experienced loss of control of their bowels it made them feel, shame myself. In another interview on 08/22/24 at 4:09 PM, Resident # 396…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-27 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
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, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the staff accurately monitored the fluid intake of 1 of 1 resident (91) reviewed for hydration. This failure placed Resident 91, who was on fluid restrictions, at risk for dehydration or fluid volume deficit. Findings included . Review of an 08/02/2024 admission assessment showed Resident 91 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with medically complex conditions, to include heart failure and an acute kidney infection. An observation on 08/21/24 at 9:18 AM showed signage above Resident 91's bed that stated the resident was on a fluid restriction. Two glasses of juice and water and a cup of coffee were observed on Resident 91's over-the-bed table. When asked why they were on a fluid restriction, Resident 91 stated, I don't know. They [staff] just told me I was on one. So, they limit the amount of fluids they have to give me. Review of an 08/05/2024 Nutrition Assessment showed Resident 91's fluid needs between 1,275 to 1,525 mL…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-27 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure oxygen delivery equipment was maintained in a clean manner and oxygen orders were followed for 1 of 2 sampled residents (19) reviewed for respiratory care. These failures placed the residents at risk for respiratory complications and infection. Findings included . Per the 07/09/2024 quarterly assessment, Resident 19 had diagnoses which included morbid obesity, high blood pressure and had moderate cognitive impairments. Review of the 04/03/2024 physician order documented Resident 19 had been prescribed oxygen to maintain oxygen saturation greater than 91%, due to hypoxia (a condition in which the body is deprived of adequate oxygen). Per the August 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR), the resident was not administered oxygen for levels of less than 92% on the following dates: -08/03/2024 oxygen level was 91% on day and night shift -08/09/2024 oxygen level was 90% on evening shift -08/10/2024 oxygen level was 90% on night shift -08/11/2024 oxygen level was 91% on day, evening and night shift…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-27 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolatedEnsure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure blood pressure medications were consistently monitored for 1 of 5 sample resident (90) reviewed for unnecessary medications. This failure placed the residents at risk for potential adverse side effects and medical conditions. Findings included . Per the 08/03/2024 admission assessment, Resident 90 had diagnoses which included high blood pressure. Review of the Physician Order Report documented the physician prescribed a blood pressure medication (Metoprolol) on 07/30/2024 to be given twice daily. The order instructed nursing staff to hold the medication if the heart rate was less than 60 beats per minute or the systolic blood pressure (the pressure in your arteries when your heart is beating and sending blood into your arteries) was under 100. In addition, the nursing staff were to notify the physician if Resident 90's blood pressure was out of the parameters listed. Review of the July and August 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR) documented no blood pressures were taken prior to administration of the blood…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2023-11-03 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
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, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement measures to promote proper positioning and maintain body alignment for 3 of 5 sampled residents (Residents 2, 3, and 4), reviewed for positioning. This failure placed residents at risk for a decline in mobility, increased risk of contracture (shortening and tightening of muscle fibers that reduces flexibility and makes movement difficult), and a decreased quality of life. Findings included . <Resident 2> Review of the care plan revised 06/26/2023 showed Resident 2 had an intervention for bilateral resting hand splints to be applied in the morning, then removed after eight hours. Review of the September 2023 Treatment Administration Record (TAR) showed staff were to apply Resident 2's bilateral resting hand splints at 8:00 AM and remove them at 4:00 PM. The splints were marked as applied on 09/11/2023. Observation on 09/11/2023 at 11:46 AM showed Resident 2 was lying in bed without the ordered hand splints applied. The resident's…
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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-04-28 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
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, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the care plan was reviewed and revised for 1 of 36 sampled residents (Resident 67), whose care plans were reviewed. This failure placed the resident at risk for unmet care needs. Findings included . According to a 03/22/2023 comprehensive assessment Resident 67 was admitted to the facility with a diagnosis of Spastic Quadriplegic Cerebral Palsy (a disorder of the brain, that affects the person's ability to control their muscles). The assessment also showed Resident 67 was unable to walk or speak, and had severe intellectual disabilities. According to a 02/28/2023 alert progress note by Staff M, Registered Nurse (RN), the resident's condition deteriorated, and they were admitted to the hospital. A 03/03/2023 progress note by Staff N, RN, showed that the resident returned to the facility with a urinary catheter (a tube inserted into the bladder to drain urine into a bag) and IV therapy (medications given through a needle or tube that…
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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-04-28 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide cueing during mealtimes for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident 31), reviewed for activities of daily living. This failure placed the resident at risk for decreased food and fluid intake, and possible unintended weight loss. Findings included . Resident 31 had diagnoses including Alzheimer's dementia (a decline in mental ability severe enough to interfere with daily life). An annual assessment completed 02/16/2023 showed the resident was severely cognitively impaired, had physical and verbal behaviors directed at others, and rejected care. The assessment also showed the resident required supervision (oversight, encouragement or cueing) and set-up help for eating. The 02/15/2022 comprehensive care plan showed the resident was at risk for nutritional problems related to Alzheimer's dementia. Per the care plan, staff were to explain the importance of maintaining the diet ordered, monitor weights per protocol, and provide and serve the diet as ordered. The care plan also showed the resident preferred to…
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.
“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.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
$8,278 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $8,278 — penalty dated 2025-05-09
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to REGENCY PACIFIC MANAGEMENT — 27 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 →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 5 of 5 | 3.9 | +1.1 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 3.7 | +0.3 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 4.0 | ≈ chain avg |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 3.6 | +1.4 vs chain |
The other 26 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.9★, per CMS)
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
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| BEDDOE, MARVIN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 04/01/2010 |
| DUNFIELD, TOD | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 04/15/2013 |
The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
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 $2.3M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 14% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
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 WA
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Washington Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 505369. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-08-27, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.