Woodland Convalescent Center
310 Fourth Street, Woodland, WA 98674 · For profit - Corporation · 62 certified beds · (360) 225-9443 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- 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
- it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0569)
- inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
- a high number of inspection citations overall (22) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $31,793 in federal fines (most recent 2026-03-30)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
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 | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 1 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 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 | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 1 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 fell from 4 to 3 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 | 12.1% | 14.2% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 9.4% | 5.5% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 2.0% | 1.0% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 1.6% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 3.6% | 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 | 1.1% | 2.6% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 25.9% | 17.2% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 18.4% | 12.4% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.1% | 93.8% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 6.1% | 4.3% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 27.4% | 22.5% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 20.8% | 15.1% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.1% | 1.3% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 94.4% | 82.0% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 31.3% | 19.9% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 22.4% | 13.4% | 12.0% | worse |
‡ 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.
45.9% 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 33 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 31.8% 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 22 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 0.15 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 12% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 10% 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 | 45.9%CMS range 29.6–62.7 | 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 | 10.8%CMS range 7.0–16.8 | 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 | 31.8% | 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 | 31.8% | 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 | 18.2% | 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 | 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 | 90.5% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.79 | 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 62 beds and averages 45.8 residents a day — about 74% occupied, or roughly 16 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 3.10 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.91 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.76 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 2.41 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.37 on weekdays — 29% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 1.01 to 0.64 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
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 unchanged from the previous inspection. 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.
22 citations, most serious first. The 12 most serious are shown; the remaining 10 are one tap away and print in full.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2023-10-27 · 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 ensure hot beverages were served at a safe temperature at or below 150 degrees Fahrenheit for 1 of 6 sampled residents (1) reviewed for accident hazards related to hot beverage service. This failure caused harm to Resident 1 who sustained three first degree burns and one second degree burn after a cup of hot cocoa spilled in their lap. This failure placed residents at risk for serious or life threatening injury from burns and a diminished quality of life. An Immediate Jeopardy was called on 10/25/2023 at 4:15 PM after observation, interview, and record review identified beverages were being served and were available at an average temperature ranging from 170 to 180 degrees Fahrenheit with no controls in place to prevent injuries to residents. Exposures to hot beverage temperatures of 124 degrees for 3 minutes, or 127 degrees for one minute, can place residents at risk for 3rd degree burns. The immediacy was removed on 10/26/2023 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.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2026-03-30 · 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 ensure a safe transfer during the use of a mechanical (hoyer) lift for 1 of 4 residents (Resident 1) reviewed for accident hazards. Resident 1 experienced harm when the hoyer lift sling detached during a mechanical lift transfer resulting in a fall; the resident sustained injuries to the head, rib fractures, and fractures of the lumbar vertebra (spine) that required hospital evaluation and treatment. Findings included.Record review of the facility policy and procedure revised in July 2017, and reviewed on 12/15/2025, titled, Lifting Machine, Using a Mechanical, documented the following: Steps in the Procedure:12. Attach sling straps to sling bar, according to manufacturer's instructions.a. Ensure the sling is securely attached to the clips and that it is properly balanced.b. Check to make sure the resident's head, neck and back are supported.c. Before resident is lifted, double check the security of the sling attachment.d. Examine all…
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 · D2026-06-09 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
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 medications were administered for 1 of 4 residents (Resident 1) reviewed for medication errors. This failure placed residents at risk for complications and decline in health status. Findings included . Record review of the facilities policy and procedure titled, Admission/re-admission Checklist, undated, documented the faco;oty was tp Activate/Confirm all physician orders in Point Click Care, the facilities electronic medical record. Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] at 6:45 pm with diagnosis including nontraumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage, (a type of stroke involving sudden bleeding into the space between the brain and the skull), type 2 diabetes mellitus, (a chronic condition in which the body doesn't produce enough insulin causing elevated blood sugar levels, and essential hypertension (high blood pressure without a single identifiable medical cause). Record review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS, an assessment tool),…
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 · E2025-06-20 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — patternTimely 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 falls with significant injury, misappropriation, and an allegation of abuse/neglect for 5 of 5 residents (11, 21, 35, 41, and 252) reviewed for reporting. The facility's failure to report delayed appropriate oversight and investigation, placing residents at risk for harm and unidentified abuse and/or neglect. Findings included . <Resident 11> Review of the 06/08/2025 Quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment (MDS), showed Resident 11 admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had moderate cognitive impairment with diagnoses including hemiplegia (paralysis of one side of the body) and hemiparesis (weakness on one side of the body). Review of the facility Grievance Log for May 2025, showed a grievance was filed on 05/17/2025 for Resident 11 regarding care issues. Review of the Grievance form for Resident 11, dated 05/17/2025, stated, Resident had a friend call in really upset regarding the care that [Resident 11] was receiving. [Friend] called stating…
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 · E2025-06-20 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — patternEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
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 medication error rate of less than 5 Percent (%). Failure to timely administer 13 of 27 medications for 4 of 9 residents (35, 24, 201, and 25) observed during medication pass audit resulted in a medication error rate of 48.15%. The failure to administer medications on time placed residents at risk for side effects and/or altered medication effectiveness. Findings included . <RESIDENT 35> During a medication administration observation on 06/18/2025 at 10:38 AM, Staff S, LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse), prepared and administered to Resident 35: -Atropine Sulfate Ophthalmic Solution 1 % Give 2 drops sublingually (under the tongue) two times a day for EOL (End of Life) comfort rt (related to) excess secretions -Carboxymethylcellulose Sod PF Ophthalmic Solution 0.5 % Instill 1 drop in both eyes two times a day for dry eyes. -Dexamethasone Oral Tablet 2 milligrams (MG) Give 1 tablet by mouth one time a day related to dysphagia. -Ipratropium-Albuterol Inhalation Solution 0.5-2.5 (3) MG/3ML (milliliters) Give…
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 · E2025-06-20 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to store and label medications appropriately and failed to discard expired medications and expired medical supplies for 1 of 1 medication rooms, 1 of 1 emergency carts, 1 of 1 treatment carts, and 1 of 1 medication carts reviewed. These failures placed residents at risk of receiving expired or less effective medications, receiving treatment with outdated equipment, and residents having inappropriate access to medication. Findings included . Facility policy entitled, Medication Labeling and Storage, reviewed on 09/12/2024, documented, The facility stores all medications and biologicals in locked compartments under proper temperature, humidity and light controls. Only authorized personnel have access to keys. <Medication Storage Room> On 06/18/2025 at 2:44 PM, a concurrent observation with Staff C, Infection Control and Preventionist and Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), showed many unopened bottles of expired over the counter medication (OTC, does not require a prescription) intended for resident use; a few examples of the many…
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 · D2025-06-20 · tag F0569 — isolatedNotify each resident of certain balances and convey resident funds upon discharge, eviction, or death.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident funds were conveyed to the resident or resident's representative within 30 days of discharge for 1 of 1 discharged residents (300) reviewed for Trust Funds. This failure placed residents and/or their representatives at risk for delayed reconciliation of resident trust funds. Findings included . Review of Resident 300's Discharge Minimum Data Set assessment, dated 01/04/2025, showed resident 300 was discharged from the facility on 01/04/2025 with return not anticipated. Resident 300's trust account statement showed Resident 300 had a closing balance of $100.05 on 05/31/2025, 147 days after discharge. On 06/18/2025 at 2:19 PM, Staff D, Business Office Manager, said the expectation was when Resident 300 discharged , his funds were dispersed to Resident 300 or his responsible party within 30 days of discharge date . Staff D said Resident 300's funds were not dispersed to him as they should have been. Reference WAC 388-97-0340(5) .
- Potential for harm · D2025-06-20 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY . Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to initiate, investigate, and resolve a grievance for 1 of 1 sampled residents (21) reviewed for grievances. This failure placed the residents at risk for emotional distress, a denial of personal rights, and a diminished quality of life. Findings included . Review of the electronic health record showed Resident 21 was cognitively intact and admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis that included post traumatic stress disorder (a mental health condition that can develop after experiencing prolonged or repeated trauma) and hypertension (high blood pressure). Review of the facility Grievance Log for February 2025, showed a grievance was filed on 02/18/2025 for Resident 21 regarding missing money. Review of the Grievance form for Resident 21, dated 02/18/2025, states, [Resident 21] received $100.00 2/3/2025 from [staff] in business office. [Resident 21] received 5 $20.00 bills. [Resident 21] took out $20.00 and gave it to activities to get her stuff…
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 · D2025-06-20 · 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 ensure the Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) assessment (a federal requirement for Medicaid-certified nursing facilities to ensure individuals, especially those with mental illness, seeking admission are appropriately placed and receive necessary services) accurately reflected mental health diagnoses for 2 of 5 sampled residents (6 & 27) reviewed for PASRR. This failure placed residents at risk of unmet mental health services and a diminished quality of life. Findings included . 1) Resident 6 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis including depressive disorder. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 03/27/2025, documented Resident 6 was severely cognitively impaired. Review of Resident 6's admission PASRR Level I , dated 12/12/2021, did not document Resident 6's serious mental indicator of major depressive disorder. Repeat PASRR Level I , dated 03/21/2025, documented Resident 6 had a depressive…
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 before2025-06-20 · 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 interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure bowel interventions were initiated for 1 of 7 sampled residents (37) reviewed for quality of care. This failure placed residents at risk for discomfort, health complications and a diminished quality of life. Findings included . Per Facility Bowel Management Policy, entitled House Bowel Protocol, Undated, showed the following interventions were to be implemented: 1. Polyethylene Glycol- 17 grams by mouth daily as needed (PRN) for constipation. Mix in 4 ounces of fluid of choice: followed by 4oz of fluid of choice in addition daily- if refuses extra fluid educate and document refusal. 2. Docusate Sodium 200 milligrams (MG) by mouth daily PRN for constipation. 3. Milk of Magnesium (MOM) 30 milliliters (ML) by mouth daily PRN. 4. Sodium Phosphate enema 133 ML rectally daily PRN for constipation (after 3 days no Bowel Movement (BM) or resident request). 5. Bisacodyl Supp 10mg rectally daily PRN for constipation (after 3 day no BM or 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 · F2025-05-21 · tag F0851 — widespreadElectronically submit to CMS complete and accurate direct care staffing information, based on payroll and other verifiable and auditable data.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure submission of the Payroll Based Journal (PBJ) per the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) requirement for 1 of 1 Fiscal Year (FY) Quarter (Q3 2024 [July 1 through August 31, 2024]), reviewed for PBJ submission. This failed practice resulted in CMS having inaccurate data related to nursing home staffing levels which had the potential to impact on the care and services provided to all the residents in the facility. Findings included . Review of the Q3 2024 HPRD Reporting Results FY Quarter 3 2024 (July 1 - August 31) showed: Facility with zero data available. On 04/28/2025 at 2:10 PM, Staff A, Administrator, stated that the facility had not submitted the PBJ to CMS for Quarter 3 2024. Reference WAC 388-97-1090(1)(2)(3)
- Potential for harm · F2024-05-03 · 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 food items were labeled and dated when opened in 1 of 2 kitchen freezers, and in 1 of 1 nourishment refrigerator/freezer (Unit 100) reviewed for food storage in a sanitary manner. This failure placed residents at risk for cross-contamination, food borne illness, and a diminished quality of life. Findings included . <Kitchen Freezer> On 4/29/2024 at 9:59 AM, the kitchen freezer was observed with the following undated, unlabeled opened items: 1. Plastic bag of meatballs 2. Plastic bag of potato wedges 3. Plastic bag with Chicken Cordon Blue 4. Plastic bag of French fries 5. Plastic bag of vegetables. At 10:08 AM, Staff L, Cook, said the items in the freezer should be dated, and said they were not. Staff L stated, They were opened last night. Should be dated, but are not. <Nourishment Refrigerator> On 05/01/2024 at 8:29 AM, the Unit 100 nourishment refrigerator/freezer was observed with the following undated and unlabeled opened items: 1. Jello in red plastic cup 2. Vanilla bean ice cream 14 oz (ounces) container 3.…
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 10 citations
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-05-03 · 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 initiate Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) for 8 of 51 sampled residents (16, 31, 33, 35, 36, 40, 48, 252), properly implement standard precautions during dressing changes for wound care for 2 of 2 sampled residents (40 & 41), implement proper aseptic techniques for urinary catheter maintenance for 1 of 4 sampled resident (31), and ensure staff preformed hand hygiene for 1 of 3 sampled staff (G) reviewed for infection prevention and control. These failures placed residents, staff, and visitors at risk for development and transmission of communicable diseases, contracting infectious diseases and a decreased quality of life. Findings included . <Enhanced Barrier Precautions> Record review of facility's infection control policy entitled, Isolation - Categories of Transmission-Based Precautions, revised September 2022, documented: 4. These strategies may differ depending on the prevalence or incidence of the MDRO (multidrug-resistant…
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 before2024-05-03 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY . Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide care in a manner that promoted dignity while assisting with meals for 1 of 11 sampled residents (Resident 47) observed during dining services in their rooms. This failure placed residents at risk for being treated with a lack of dignity, lack of respect, and a diminished quality of life. Findings included . Resident 47 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The admission Minimum Data Set assessment, dated 04/03/2024, showed Resident 47 had severely impaired cognition, but could adequately hear, was able to make self understood, and was able to understand others. Review of Resident 47's care plan, dated 04/01/2024, documented interventions including all staff were to converse with the resident while providing care, the resident needed time to talk daily, to allow the resident time to answer questions and encourage them to express their feelings, and to provide the resident with a homelike environment. On 05/01/2024 at 8:57 AM,…
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 · D2024-05-03 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
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 maintain comfortable sound levels for 2 of 6 sampled residents (21 & 34) reviewed for homelike environment. This failure placed residents at risk of loss of control over unwanted noise and a diminished quality of life. Findings included . 1) Resident 34 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The admission's 5-day Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 03/22/2024, documented Resident 34 was cognitively intact. On 04/29/2024 at 11:27 AM, when asked if the resident had any concerns, Resident 34 said it was too noisy at night. Resident 34 said the TV in the hallway was on early in the morning and woke him up. Resident 34 said he had his wife buy him headphones to help him sleep because of the noise. Resident 34 said he wanted to see the TV/noise policy. 2) Resident 21 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The quarterly MDS assessment, dated 02/29/2024, documented Resident 21 was moderately cognitively impaired and could make needs…
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 · D2024-05-03 · 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to thoroughly investigate an allegation of inappropriate resident-to-resident touching for 1 of 6 sampled residents (2) reviewed for investigating alleged abuse and neglect. This failure placed residents at risk for not identifying corrective actions to prevent further abuse and a diminished quality of life. Findings included . The facility's policy entitled, Abuse Prevention Program, reviewed 05/04/2022, showed 4. Comprehensive policies and procedures have been developed to aid our facility in preventing abuse, neglect, or mistreatment of our residents. Our abuse prevention program provides policies and procedures that govern, as a minimum: . e. The development of investigative protocols governing resident abuse, theft/misappropriation of resident property, resident-to-resident abuse and resident-to-staff abuse; f. Timely and thorough investigation of all reports and allegations of abuse; i. The implementation of changes to prevent future occurrences…
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 before2024-05-03 · 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 interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure bowel interventions were initiated for 2 of 4 sampled residents (44 & 39) reviewed for quality of care related to constipation. This failure placed residents at risk for discomfort, health complications and a diminished quality of life. Findings included . The facility's policy entitled, Bowel Management, updated 11/12/2023, documented the following interventions: Step 1: After 3 days no BM: Polyethylene Glycol [a laxative to treat constipation] - one capful (17 gms [grams]) in 4 oz (ounce) fluid of choice followed by 4 oz of fluid of choice in addition- if refuses extra fluid document refusals. Step 2: If no BM following day or stools are hard add Docusate Sodium 200 mg (milligrams) daily at bedtime. Step 3: If no BM following day MOM [milk of magnesia] 30 cc (cubic centimeters) by mouth daily. (DO NOT use if has diagnose: ESRD [end-stage renal disease]) Step 4: If no BM following day check for impaction and add Sodium Phosphate enema 133…
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 · D2024-05-03 · 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 offer and/or administer the influenza and pneumococcal vaccine to 2 of 5 sampled residents (46 & 39) reviewed for immunizations. This failure placed residents at risk for developing influenza and/or pneumonia with potential negative outcomes and a diminished quality of life. Findings included . Record review of the facility's policy entitled, Influenza Vaccine, revised October 2019, showed residents admitted between October 1st and March 31st shall be offered the vaccine within five (5) working days of admission to the facility. Record review of the facility's policy entitled, Pneumococcal Vaccine, revised October 2019, showed Prior to or upon admission, residents will be assessed for eligibility to receive the pneumococcal vaccine series, and when indicated, will be offered the vaccine series within thirty (30) days of admission to the facility unless medically contraindicated or the resident has already been vaccinated. 1) Resident 46 was admitted…
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 before2023-04-20 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — patternHonor 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY . Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure care was provided in a manner that promoted the resident's dignity and quality of life when private information about residents was discussed in common areas for 2 of 2 sampled residents (16 & 8), when staff failed to knock or introduce themselves prior to entering resident rooms for 1 of 1 sampled residents (39), and when personal grooming was not provided for 3 of 4 sampled residents (15, 34 & 38) reviewed for dignity. These failure placed residents at risk for embarrassment, diminished self-worth, and a decreased quality of life. Findings included . <Private Information> 1) Resident 16 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool, dated 02/12/2023, showed the resident was cognitively intact. 2) Resident 8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], showed Resident 8 was cognitively intact. On 04/17/2023 at 3:23 PM, Resident 16 said an agency…
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 before2023-04-20 · 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 and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff handwashing was completed while delivering meal trays around 5 of 5 resident rooms (124, 128, 129, 130 & 137) reviewed for infection control and prevent regarding dining services. This failure placed residents at risk of infectious disease exposure and foodborne illness. Findings included . On 04/17/2023 at 12:48 PM, Staff J, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA), was observed delivering lunch to the resident in room [ROOM NUMBER], assisting with set up and transferring the resident into a chair. Staff J exited the room without cleaning her hands. Staff J then went into room [ROOM NUMBER] to assist with meal set up. At 12:49 PM, the resident in room [ROOM NUMBER] was observed dropping a plate cover. Staff K, CNA, entered the room and picked the cover off the floor. Staff K exited the room without cleaning her hands. Staff K then delivered a meal tray to the resident in room [ROOM NUMBER]. Staff K exited room [ROOM NUMBER] and did not clean her…
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 · D2023-04-20 · 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 of transfer/discharge to the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman describing the reason for transfer/discharge for 1 of 1 sampled residents (41) reviewed for hospitalization. This failure placed residents at risk for lack of access to an advocate who can inform them of their options and rights, and a diminished quality of life. Findings included . Resident 41 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The admission/5-day Minimum Data Set, an assessment tool, dated 02/16/2023, showed the resident was cognitively intact. The Electronic Health Record (EHR) documented Resident 41 was transferred and admitted to an acute care hospital on [DATE]. Resident 41's EHR showed no documentation of notifying the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman of the transfer/discharge. On 04/19/2023 at 5:13 PM, Staff B, Director of Nursing Services and Registered Nurse, said social services notified the Ombudsman of transfers and discharges monthly.…
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 before2023-04-20 · 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 monitor and report changes in daily weights, per physician's order, for 1 of 5 sampled residents (29) reviewed for quality of care related to unnecessary medication. This failure placed residents at risk of worsening conditions, health complications and a diminished quality of life. Findings included . Resident 29 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including heart failure, respiratory failure, edema and dementia. The Minimum Data Set, an assessment tool, dated 01/22/2023, showed the resident was alert and oriented. Record review of the April 2023 physician orders showed the physician had ordered multiple medications for the diagnoses (heart, dementia, respiratory failure) and daily weights for edema (accumulation of body fluid) monitoring. Orders directed staff to report weight gained greater than 2 pounds in 2 days or 5 pounds in 1 week. Review of the record showed on 04/12/2023 the physician visited the resident 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.
“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
$31,793 in federal fines across 2 penalties. 1 Medicare payment denial on record.
- $14,015 — penalty dated 2026-03-30
- $17,778 — penalty dated 2023-10-27
- Medicare payment denial — starting 2025-09-20 for 23 days
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.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SETTLEMIER, CAROLINE | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 06/01/1981 |
| HAYES, CANDY | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 09/01/2011 |
| KASER, BRANDON | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 05/30/2006 |
| EVERGREEN LIVING CENTERS, INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 01/01/1997 |
| CHINN, LARRY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 01/01/1997 |
| CLAY, BRYAN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 01/01/1997 |
1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $372K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in 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 505232. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-06-20, 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.