Linden Post Acute
802 West Third Avenue, Toppenish, WA 98948 · For profit - Corporation · 75 certified beds · (509) 865-3955 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (28% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (31) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
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) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 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 | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 4 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 4 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 | 8.7% | 14.2% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.8% | 5.5% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.4% | 1.0% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.4% | 1.6% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 9.4% | 17.7% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger 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 | 3.8% | 2.6% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 26.0% | 17.2% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 13.4% | 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 | 6.5% | 4.3% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 14.9% | 22.5% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 21.1% | 15.1% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.9% | 1.3% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.2% | 82.0% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 21.0% | 19.9% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 7.1% | 13.4% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.73 | 1.33 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.92 | 1.52 | 1.80 | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ 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.
44.5% 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 88 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 61.4% 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 44 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 0.19 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 20% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 16% 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 | 44.5%CMS range 34.4–53.4 | 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 | 10.9%CMS range 7.5–15.1 | 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 | 61.4% | 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 | 63.6% | 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 | 56.8% | 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 | 100.0% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 | 86.7% | 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 | 0.0% | 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 | 0.0% | 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 | 7.5%CMS range 4.7–12.2 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.14 | 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 75 beds and averages 71.8 residents a day — about 96% occupied, or roughly 3 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. 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 3.71 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.64 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.47 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 3.36 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.85 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.71 to 0.47 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 28% is below 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 fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. 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.
31 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 21 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-11-21 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
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 staff followed infection control standards of practice regarding implementation of personal protective equipment (PPE, protective equipment designed to safeguard individuals and reduce the risk of contracting or spreading infectious diseases) with residents on Transmission Base Precautions (TBP, safeguards within a room or facility that are put in place to help prevent the spread of diseases) to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 for 5 of 5 staff (Staff I, P, Q, J and K), reviewed for infection control practices. This failure placed residents, staff, and visitors at an increased risk of exposure to cross contamination (harmful spread of diseases) and transmission of infectious diseases during a COVID-19 outbreak. Findings included . Review of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) COVID-19 guidelines titled, Infection Control Guidance: SARS-COV-2, updated 06/24/2024, showed that facilities with confirmed or suspected…
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 · D2025-11-21 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
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 ensure the notification to the resident's representative (RR) of changes in the resident's mental/psychosocial status (the impact on an individual's emotional, social and environmental factors affecting their mental health and well-being) and/or the need to alter treatment for 1 of 2 residents (Resident 61) reviewed for notification of changes. This failure placed the resident at risk of not having their RR involved in the health care decision making process and increased the risk of the RR from making an informed decision regarding the resident's care. Findings included .Resident 61Review of the resident's medical record showed they were admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis including a stroke (when blood supply to the brain is blocked or reduced), dysphagia (difficulty swallowing) following the stroke, apraxia (the inability to perform purposeful movement or gestures leading to difficulties with things such as dressing and grooming),…
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 · D2025-11-21 · tag F0585 — failed to handle grievances — isolatedHonor the resident's right to voice grievances without discrimination or reprisal and the facility must establish a grievance policy and make prompt efforts to resolve grievances.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to have a system in place to ensure Residents were aware of how to file a grievance (a formal complaint by a resident or resident representative [RR]) and who the facility's Grievance officer was, these concerns were voiced in Resident Council (a formal meeting for facility residents to communicate preferences and concerns) for 3 of 5 residents (Resident 26, 39, and 75) who expressed they were unaware of how to file a grievance or who the facility Grievance Officer was. These failures placed residents at risk for overall dissatisfaction with their lives and unresolved concerns. Findings included .Record review of a facility policy titled Resident Grievance updated 08/01/2024 showed the facility supports each resident's right to voice concerns/ grievances verbally or in writing. Additionally, Social Services Director was responsible for overseeing the grievance process. On 11/19/2025 at 1:30 PM, Resident's 26, 39, 41, 54, and 75 attended Resident Council meeting. Resident 26 stated they had been in the facility for a while, 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.
- Potential for harm · D2025-11-21 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop 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, interview and record review the facility failed to develop comprehensive resident centered care plans for 2 of 6 residents (Residents 30 and 42) reviewed for care planning. This failure placed residents at risk for unmet care needs. Findings included .Resident 30 Review of the medical record showed the resident was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of a stroke (when blood supply to the brain is blocked or reduced) and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA, a condition in which an individual has repeated interruptions in breathing while sleep). The 06/07/2025 comprehensive assessment showed the resident had intact cognition, able to make their needs known and had a non-invasive mechanical ventilator (a device, like a CPAP machine, that utilizes pressure to force air/oxygen into an individual's lungs, through a mask to assist with breathing) device. A concurrent observation and interview on 11/17/2025 at 12:31 PM showed Resident 30's CPAP device on…
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 · D2025-11-21 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide the necessary care and services to ensure residents dependent on staff received consistent oral care and nail care for 3 of 3 residents (Residents 1, 3, and 42) reviewed for activities of daily living (ADLs) care provided for dependent residents. This failure to receive adequate, consistent grooming and oral care according to the residents' care plan placed the residents at risk for unmet care needs, impaired skin integrity, and embarrassment.Findings included .Review of the facility's policy titled, Activities of Daily Living (ADL), Supporting revised, 03/2018, showed, residents who were unable to carry out ADLs independently would receive the services necessary to maintain grooming and personal and oral hygiene. Resident 1 Review of Resident 1's medical record showed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include right leg fracture, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (chronic lung disease 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 · D2025-11-21 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide respiratory care in accordance with accepted standards of practice, regarding a resident's continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP, a device that uses mild pressure to keep the airway open when asleep) machine for 1 of 2 residents (Resident 30) reviewed for respiratory care and treatment. This failure placed the resident at risk of respiratory status complications and unmet care needs.Findings included .Review of the facility's policy tiled, CPAP/Bilevel Positive Airway Pressure (BiPAP, a device that is similar to CPAP to assist with breathing while sleeping), revised March 2015, showed that resident CPAP devices need to be cleaned along with the humidifier canister at least weekly, replacing of disposable filters monthly and daily cleaning of mask/tubing. The policy showed that CPAP documentation should be complete in the resident medical record including, the time/duration of CPAP when used, the mode for the resident's CPAP 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.
- Potential for harm · D2025-11-21 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
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 ensure a cognitively impaired resident representative (RR) was offered the pneumococcal immunizations (a vaccine that protects against pneumococcal infections that can lead to serious lung infections), given the opportunity with refusal or acceptance of the vaccine on behalf of the resident, nor receive education on the risk/benefits of the vaccine for 1 of 5 residents (Resident 61) reviewed for immunizations. This failure placed the resident at an increased risk for a contagious disease without the RR having the opportunity to make an informed decision in the refusal or acceptance of the pneumococcal vaccine. Findings included .Review of the facility's policy titled, Vaccination of Residents, adopted 01/30/2025, showed the facility would offer the pneumococcal vaccine to all residents within the facility, unless it was medically contraindicated or had already been vaccinated. The policy showed that residents or their legal representatives would be…
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 · D2025-11-21 · tag F0887 — isolatedEducate residents and staff on COVID-19 vaccination, offer the COVID-19 vaccine to eligible residents and staff after education, and properly document each resident and staff member's vaccination status.
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 ensure residents and/or their representative were offered/educated on the COVID-19 (an infectious disease causing respiratory illness with symptoms including cough, fever, new or worsening malaise, headache, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, loss of taste or smell, and in severe cases, difficulty breathing that could result in severe impairment or death) immunization (the action of taking a vaccine for a particular infectious disease) for 1 of 5 sampled residents (Resident 61) reviewed for immunization status. This failure placed the resident and/or their representative at risk of making an uninformed decision and resident contracting the COVID-19 virus. Findings included .Review of the facility's policy titled, Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) - Vaccination of residents, adopted 01/30/2025, showed the facility would offer the COVID-19 vaccine to all residents within the facility, unless it was medically contraindicated or had already been fully…
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 before2025-06-30 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
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 ensure that the state agency was notified about an elopement for 1 of 1 resident (Resident 1) reviewed for elopements. This failure placed the resident at risk for potential endangerment. Findings included . <Resident 1> Review of the medical record showed the resident admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including high blood pressure, Parkinson's Disease (neurodegenerative disease with brain deterioration that affects body movements by slowing movements and causes tremors and balance issues), reduced mobility and homelessness. The 05/30/2025 comprehensive assessment showed Resident 1 was alert and oriented and required partial to substantial assistance with transfers, dressing and toileting. During an interview on 06/30/2025 at 10:30 AM, Staff B, Director of Nursing Services, stated Resident 1 left the facility without notice and staff were not aware of their location. Staff B stated Resident 1 was not assessed as an elopement risk. 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.
- Potential for harm · D2025-06-30 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — isolatedMake sure that the nursing home area is safe, easy to use, clean and comfortable for residents, staff and the public.
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 provide a safe, comfortable environment for 3 of 6 rooms (Rooms 27, 28 and 29) for maintenance repairs. This failure placed residents at risk of injury and a diminished quality of life by not maintaining a safe and functional environment. Findings included . Review of the undated Facility Maintenance Program policy showed the facility should have .regularly scheduled inspections .building interior inspections include checking floors, ceilings and walls weekly . Review of the April 2025 through June 2025 maintenance log did not identify Rooms 27, 28. and 29 for maintenance inspection or repair. During an observation and concurrent interview on 06/30/2025 at 11:05 AM, showed room [ROOM NUMBER] with white walls and four feet long cuts into the wall located on the right side of the room by the baseboard and the lower wall. Additionally, there were multiple gouges (indentations) brown in color where the paint was removed along the wall above…
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.
Show the remaining 21 citations
- Potential for harm · E2024-10-30 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — patternEnsure 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 ensure residents environment remained free of accident/hazards with: A) a resident that required a smoking apron for safety when smoking for 1 of 2 residents (Resident 29) reviewed for accident/hazard of smoking, B) the securement of compressed oxygen cylinder storage for 1 of 2 storage rooms (East/West storage room) reviewed for accident/hazards of oxygen cylinder storage, and C) that toxic cleaning chemicals were safely stored away from residents for 2 of 3 hallways (East/West and Central Hall) reviewed for accidents/hazards of chemicals. This failure placed residents at an increased risk for avoidable accidents, significate injury, and unmet care needs. Findings included . Review of the facility's policy titled, Smoking Policy for Independent and Supervised, revised December 2017 showed that residents who wished to smoke would be assessed for their risks with smoking and the ability to smoke safely. Residents who did not meet 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.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-10-30 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — patternEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
<Kitchen> An observation and interview on 10/24/2024 at 12:20 PM, showed Staff O, Cook, and Staff N, Dietary Aide, starting the lunch meal serve out, 20 minutes after the posted lunch meal start time. The first cart of lunch trays was sent out of the kitchen at 12:28 PM, the second at 12:36 PM, the third at 12:45 PM, and the fourth at 12:54 PM. At 1:01 PM, Staff O informed Staff M, Dietary Manager, that there were not enough pellet inserts (a warmed disc placed in the base of a plate holder to retain heat) for the plate warmers. There were six lunch meals that were placed in the meal tray cart that did not have pellet inserts, including the surveyor test tray. Staff M stated they frequently ran out of silverware and pellets for the warmers. They stated they go out on the meal trays but don't come back. At 1:06 PM, the final meal tray cart was sent out, one hour and six minutes after the posted mealtime. During a continued observation and interview on 10/24/2024 at 1:14 PM, showed a pureed meal, the noodles were a translucent, white, gel-like substance, with a scoop of a brown pureed…
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 · E2024-10-30 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure 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, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure periodic testing of sanitizing agents used for proper sanitation of food preparation surfaces in accordance with professional standards for food service safety, appropriate labeling of open foods, and that food delivery carts were clean, for 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for safe food service. This failure placed residents, staff, and visitors that ate from the facility's kitchen at risk for food borne illnesses and the spread of infectious diseases. Findings included . Review of the policy titled, Food Preparation and Service, dated 11/2022, showed food and nutrition services staff would prepare, distribute, and serve food in a manner that complied with safe food handling processes. Appropriate measures used to prevent cross contamination (the spread of chemical or disease-causing organisms transferred to food by hands, food contact surfaces, sponges, cloth towels, or utensils that were not adequately cleaned) included using sanitizing towels or cloths for wiping surfaces in a container filled with 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 · D2024-10-30 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
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 residents that required assistance with eating received a dignified meal service, related to timely assistance with meals, for 2 of 4 residents (Residents 14 and 3) reviewed for dignity. This failure placed the residents at risk for unmet care needs and a deterioration in their quality of life. Findings included . <Resident 14> Review of the resident's medical record showed they were admitted to the facility with diagnoses including dementia (a progressive disease that destroys the memory and other important mental functions), dysphasia (impaired ability to swallow) and legal blindness. Resident 14's comprehensive assessment, dated 08/28/2024, showed the resident was severely cognitively impaired and required substantial assistance (a considerable amount) with eating. Review of Resident 14's care plan, dated 09/03/2024, showed the resident's legal blindness and cognition status was the reason they required substantial assistance from staff with their meals. During an observation on 10/22/2024 from…
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 · D2024-10-30 · tag F0645 — isolatedPASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
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 review and validate the Preadmission Screening and Resident Reviews ([PASARR], an assessment to ensure individuals with serious mental illness [SMI] or intellectual/developmental disabilities [ID/DD] are not inappropriately placed in nursing homes for long term care) were corrected on/after residents admission to the facility and had the required Level II referral sent if residents had a positive Level I PASARR for 2 of 8 residents (Resident 29 and 56) reviewed for PASARR. This failure placed the residents at risk for not receiving the care and services appropriate for their needs. Findings included . Review of the Department of Social and Health Services, Dear Nursing Home Administrator Letter, guidance titled, Clarification to the Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR or PASRR) Level I Screening Process, dated 07/06/2024, showed that nursing facilities will ensure residents with a positive Level I PASARR screen have been evaluated by…
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 · D2024-10-30 · tag F0660 — isolatedPlan the resident's discharge to meet the resident's goals and needs.
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 develop and implement an effective discharge planning process that addressed the resident's goals and needs, that involved the resident and the interdisciplinary team [(IDT) a group of healthcare professionals from different disciplines to help residents receive the care they need] for 1 of 3 residents (Resident 264) reviewed for discharge planning process. The failure to develop and implement a discharge plan consistent with the resident's needs and expressed discharge goals, placed the resident at risk for decreased self-worth and dissatisfaction with their living situation. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure a safe discharge when 1 of 2 residents (Resident 61) discharged against medical advice (AMA) with a peripheral inserted central catheter line [(PICC) a thin, flexible tube that is inserted into a vein in the arm and threaded into a large vein above the heart used to deliver fluids and medications]. This failure placed the resident at…
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 · D2024-10-30 · 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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents received treatment and care of their type two diabetes mellitus (a disease that causes inadequate control of the body's blood levels of sugar, which can lead to abnormally high or low levels of the body's blood sugar) in accordance with professional standards of practice for 1 of 2 residents (Resident 218) reviewed for insulin (a medication that assists in control of blood sugar levels) therapy. This failure placed residents at an increased risk for unmet care needs, emergent situations, and poor health outcomes. Findings included . Review of a policy titled, Nursing Care of the Older Adult with Diabetes Mellitus, dated November 2020, showed blood glucose (sugar) monitoring of diabetic residents were needed to detect hyperglycemia (high levels of blood sugar in the body, greater than 150 milligrams/deciliter [mg/dL, units of measure]) and hypoglycemia (low levels of blood sugar in the body, less than 70 mg/dL)…
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 · D2024-10-30 · 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to identify and utilize an implanted bladder stimulator device [(InterStim) - an implantable device that treats urinary incontinence and overactive bladder by sending electrical pulses to the sacral nerves] used to treat urinary incontinence for 1 of 2 residents (Resident 5) reviewed for urinary incontinence (a loss of bladder control or involuntary urination). This failure placed the resident at risk for poor self-esteem related to dignity, skin impairments, continued urinary incontinence, and other health complications. Findings included . Review of the Medtronic InterStim guidance titled, Sacral Neuromodulation (the use of electrical or chemical stimulation to change nerve activity), dated 10/2024, showed the InterStim system was an implanted neurostimulator (a device that uses electrical stimulation to treat neurological disorders). The leads (wires) from the implanted device stimulate the sacral nerves that control normal bladder and bowel function.…
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 · D2024-10-30 · tag F0699 — isolatedProvide care or services that was trauma informed and/or culturally competent.
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 ensure residents who were trauma survivors received culturally competent, trauma informed care, complete with identified experiences and preferences regarding potential triggers (a stimulus that could prompt a recall of a previous traumatic event even if the stimulus itself is not traumatic or frightening) that may cause re-traumatization (a reliving of the traumatic experience) for 1 of 4 residents (Resident 29) reviewed for trauma informed care. This failure placed the resident at risk for unidentified triggers and re-traumatization. Findings included . Review of the policy titled, Trauma Informed Care, dated 08/01/2024, showed, Trauma-informed care is an approach aimed at identification of individuals with a trauma history and the development of care approaches that are sensitive to the individual needs . The policy showed identifying potential triggers and making modifications to care approaches and strategies would be a focus to order to avoid…
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 · D2024-10-30 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
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 a medication error rate of less than five percent for 2 of 5 residents (Residents 218 and 1) observed during 27 medication administration opportunities that resulted in an error rate of 7.41 percent. This failure placed the residents at risk of not receiving the full therapeutic effect of the medication and potential adverse side effects. Findings included . Review of the Basaglar KwikPen (a pre-filled disposable device containing an insulin medication) instructions for use, dated 11/2023, showed the insulin pen needed to be primed (removing air from the needle and cartridge that may have collected during normal use) before each injection. If the pen was not primed before each injection, too much or too little insulin could be delivered. Review of a policy titled, Medication Administration, dated 01/2023, showed check expiration date on package/container .no expired medication will be administered to a resident. <Resident 218>…
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 · D2024-10-30 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — isolatedDispose of garbage and refuse properly.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to properly dispose of kitchen refuse for 1 of 1 kitchen, reviewed for refuse disposal. This failure placed the facility at risk for attracting insects, rodents, and an unsanitary environment. Findings included . During an observation on 12/24/2024 at 12:38 PM, showed a fly in the kitchen, walking on the lipped plates that were being used during serve out. At 12:42 PM, a second fly was noted resting on the plates. An observation on 10/28/2024 at 12:41 PM, showed two black trash bags containing kitchen food garbage, on a cart located outside of the emergency exit of the kitchen/laundry hallway with snow peas scattered on the ground. There were flies, bees, and gnats swarming around the trash bags and snow peas. During an interview on 10/29/2024 at 12:47 PM, Staff O, Cook, stated they put the kitchen trash outside the door until later. During an interview on 10/29/2024 at 12:55 PM, Staff M, Dietary Manager, stated the process for removing trash from the kitchen included taking it to the dumpster right away and not leaving it…
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 · D2024-10-30 · tag F0847 — isolatedInform resident or representatives choice to enter into binding arbitration agreement and right to refuse.
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 ensure a resident had the cognitive capacity to understand the nature and implication of entering into a binding arbitration agreement used to settle disputes without a jury trial for 1 of 3 residents (Resident 39) reviewed for arbitration. This failure placed the resident at risk for a lack of understanding of the legal contract they had signed and their right to make a choice for a jury trial in the event of a dispute with the facility. Findings included . <Resident 39> Review of the resident's medical record showed they were admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including, congestive heart failure (a chronic condition in which the heart does not pump blood as well as it should) and bipolar disorder (a mental disorder that causes changes in mood and energy). Review of the comprehensive assessment, dated 10/09/2024, showed the resident had severe cognitive impairment with their Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS, a numerically scored…
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 before2023-09-25 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
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 report allegations of potential abuse and/or neglect to their State Agency, for 1 of 5 residents (Residents 13), reviewed for abuse/neglect. This failure placed the resident at risk for unidentified abuse/neglect, and the potential continued exposure to abuse and/or neglect. Findings included . Review of the facility's policy titled, Abuse-Screening, Training, Identification, Investigation, Reporting, and Protection, revised January 2023, showed that it was the policy of the facility to report allegations of abuse to appropriate reporting authority, that all staff members were considered mandatory reporters and were required to report their State Agency. <Resident 13> Review of the resident medical records showed they were admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including an infection in the left leg, anxiety, depression, and a developmental disability (a disorder that includes intellectual disabilities or learning problems and unique…
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 · D2023-09-25 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
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 conduct a thorough investigation into an allegation of abuse for 1 of 2 residents (Resident 13), reviewed for abuse and neglect. This failure placed the resident at risk for unidentified abuse, unmet care needs, and the potential continued exposure to abuse and/or neglect. Findings included . Review of the facility's policy titled, Abuse-Screening, Training, Identification, Investigation, Reporting, and Protection, revised January 2023, showed that all allegations of abuse were to have a thorough investigation completed and that administrative personnel immediately remove staff member involved in said incident from their duties. The staff member is removed from the center until administrative personnel can complete a through investigation of reported incident. <Resident 13> Review of the resident medical records showed they were admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including an infection of the left leg, anxiety, depression, and 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.
- Potential for harm · D2023-09-25 · 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 meet the requirements for a facility-initiated discharge for 1 of 2 residents (Resident 53), reviewed for discharge requirements. Resident 53 was not allowed to remain a resident in the facility after requesting a therapeutic leave to visit their sick spouse. This failed practice placed the resident at risk for homelessness, unmet care needs, and a diminished quality of life. Findings included . Review of the facility policy titled Notice of Transfer or Discharge, dated 03/2019, showed a facility-initiated discharge was a discharge that the resident objects to, did not originate through a resident's verbal or written request, and/or was not in alignment with the resident's stated goals for care and preferences. <Resident 53> Review of the medical record showed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including respiratory failure, and a broken upper arm. The 07/18/2023 comprehensive assessment showed the resident required…
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 · D2023-09-25 · tag F0623 — isolatedProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
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 provide a written notice to the resident and their representative of the facility's intention and justification for the discharge of 1 of 2 residents (Resident 53) reviewed for facility-initiated discharges. Additionally, the facility failed to send a copy of the notice of transfer or discharge to the representative of the Office of the State Long-Term Care (LTC) Ombudsman (a person that advocates for residents in nursing homes). This failed practice disallowed the resident and/or their representative an opportunity to fully understand the rationale and resident rights associated with the discharge. This failure also placed the resident at risk for diminished protection, lack of access to an advocate that could inform them of their options and rights, and to ensure the resident advocacy agency was aware of the facility practices and activities related to transfer or discharge. Findings included . Review of the facility policy titled, Notice of Transfer…
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 · D2023-09-25 · tag F0625 — isolatedNotify the resident or the resident’s representative in writing how long the nursing home will hold the resident’s bed in cases of transfer to a hospital or therapeutic leave.
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 provide a written bed-hold notice at the time of transfer or within 24 hours of transfer to the hospital for 2 of 3 Residents (Residents 11 and 205), reviewed for hospitalization. This failure placed the residents and/or their representative at risk for a lack of knowledge regarding their right to hold their bed while hospitalized . Findings included . Review of the facility's policy titled, Bed Hold, dated October 2016, showed .upon transfer to offer the resident and responsible part the option to hold the bed .upon transfer or discharge the nursing department will provide the resident and responsible party a copy of the bed hold policy, and a bed hold form needed to be filled out whether a resident wanted to secure their bed or not. Additionally, .Social Service Director will contact the responsible party to notify them of facility policy and obtain decision (to hold the resident bed or not), which would be within 24 hours. <Resident 11> Review of…
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 before2023-09-25 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — isolatedEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
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 prepare palatable meals for 4 of 9 sample residents (Residents 3, 6,11, and 26) reviewed for food service. This failure placed the residents at risk for a diminished dining experience, dissatisfaction with food served, and a potential for less than adequate nutritional intake leading to weight loss. Findings included . <Dining Observation> <Resident 3> Review of the medical record showed the resident was alert and oriented with diagnoses of diabetes (when the body cannot process insulin and blood sugar is high) and kidney disease. The resident chose to eat in their room. During an interview and concurrent observation on 09/18/2023 at 12:35 PM, the resident's noon meal was served. The resident told staff to take it away because it was cold. During an observation on 09/19/2023 at 12:30 PM, the resident's lunch was served. The resident refused the meal due to the unappetizing taste and cold temperature of the food. During an interview and observation on 09/21/2023 at 1:11 PM, the resident stated the lunch was…
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 · D2023-09-25 · tag F0806 — failed to honor food preferences — isolatedEnsure each resident receives and the facility provides food that accommodates resident allergies, intolerances, and preferences, as well as appealing options.
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 serve preferred foods and meal substitutions for 4 of 6 residents (Residents 3, 9, 20, and 32) reviewed for food and nutrition services. This failure placed the residents at risk for decreased dietary intake, unintended weight loss, and a diminished quality of life. Findings included . <Resident 3> Review of the medical record showed the resident had diagnoses of diabetes (when the body cannot process insulin and blood sugar is high), heart disease, kidney disease and a diabetic ulcer to the heel of their left foot (a sore that develops on the foot or heel due to a loss of sensation). During an interview and concurrent observation on 09/18/2023 at 12:35 PM, the resident noon meal consisted of breaded chicken, rice, and banana pudding. The resident told staff to take it away because it was cold and had too many carbohydrates (food containing a lot of sugars and starches). Staff did not offer an alternative menu to the resident. The resident…
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 · D2023-09-25 · tag F0825 — isolatedProvide or get specialized rehabilitative services as required for a resident.
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 provide Specialized Rehabilitative (Rehab) Services according to physician's orders for 1 of 2 residents (Resident 41) reviewed for therapy services. The failure to provide speech therapy (ST) services to Resident 41 placed them at risk for a decline in physical and functional mobility, deterioration of muscle strength and a potential delay in the resident's progression towards regaining their normal eating ability. Findings included . <Resident 41> Review of the resident's medical records showed that they were admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including stroke, brain bleed, dysphagia (swallowing complications), aphasia (the loss of the ability to understand or express speech), and a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube (PEG Tube, a feeding tube through the skin into the stomach that provided a means for nutrition when a resident swallowing ability was not adequate). Review of the resident's most recent comprehensive assessment, dated 07/25/2023,…
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 before2023-09-25 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
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 appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE - enhanced prevention strategies to prevent spread of disease) including the use of an N95 mask (a respiratory protective device designed to achieve a very close facial fit and filtration of airborne particles), gown, gloves, and eye protection/face shield during facility wide testing for COVID-19 (an infectious disease causing respiratory illness with symptoms including cough, fever, new or worsening malaise, headache, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, loss of that or smell, and in severe cases difficulty breathing that could result in severe impairment or death) for 1 of 1 resident (Resident 4), reviewed for COVID-19 testing. In addition, the facility failed to ensure infection control practices for 2 of 2 residents (Resident 4 and 9) were implemented related to hand hygiene and glove changes between dirty and clean tasks (after touching the resident and/or 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.
“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
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to PACS GROUP — 274 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 | 4 of 5 | 2.9 | +1.1 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 2.5 | +1.5 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 2.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 4.4 | -0.4 vs chain |
The other 273 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.9★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 273; lowest-rated first.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| TRUIST BANK | Organization | 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST | since 08/01/2024 |
| APT, FREDERICK | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 05/14/2024 |
| COUPAL, CAMILLE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/01/2024 |
| EMMANS, PAUL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/28/2026 |
| JALLOW, AMADOU | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/28/2026 |
| JERGENSEN, JOSHUA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 05/14/2024 |
| MITCHELL, JOHN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 05/14/2024 |
| PROVIDENCE ADMINISTRATIVE CONSULTING SERVICES INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/01/2024 |
| TOPPENISH 802 REALTY LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/01/2024 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 11 rows in the source record cover these 9 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.
3 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.
About 76% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $773K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
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 505096. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-11-21, 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.