Home / Washington / Bellingham
2726 Alderwood Avenue, Bellingham, WA 98225 · Whatcom County · (360) 733-2322
102 certified beds, about 69 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1967
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 505092 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on January 16, 2026, inspectors cited 7 health deficiencies (the Washington average is 15.8, the national average 9.2).
None of its 40 health citations since February 2024 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy.
CMS lists no fines against this home in the last three years.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.98 hours per resident per day, against 4.36 across Washington and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 1.03 of those hours.
48.0% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Washington average 45.1%).
CMS links it to Cascadia Healthcare, an affiliated group of 47 nursing homes.
Federal rules call for a standard inspection at least every 15 months, plus a visit whenever a complaint is filed. Each mark below is one citation, colored by how serious inspectors rated it. How to read a citation.
Under each citation, the quoted text is the inspector's own summary from the federal statement of deficiencies (CMS form 2567), word for word apart from a privacy scrub; CMS removes residents' and staff names before it publishes the text. The full notes are on Medicare.gov.
CMS rates every citation by how much harm it caused (rows) and how many residents it touched (columns). The count in each box is this home's, across all 40 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure thorough investigation and resolution of grievances for one of one resident facility groups. This failure resulted in continued dissatisfaction among residents regarding how their grievances are being addressed and had the potential to impact residents quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that 5 of 5 residents (3, 4, 9, 16, and 26) reviewed for limited Range of Motion (ROM) received necessary care and services. The facility failed to ensure residents received appropriate restorative nursing services programs as ordered. This failure placed residents at risk for decline in mobility and function, increased dependence on staff, and a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that 1 of 6 residents (Resident 3) reviewed for the Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR - a federally required screening of all individuals for Intellectual Disability (ID) or Related Condition and a Serious Mental Illness (SMI) prior to admission) process. The facility failed to ensure a resident with a positive Level 1 PASRR had a Level 2 evaluation completed for a resident that qualified with ID for services. This failure placed residents at risk for unidentified health care needs, lack of services and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure comprehensive care planning and implementation for 1 of 4 residents (Resident 66) reviewed for impaired range of motion. This failure placed residents at risk for impaired skin integrity and decreased quality of care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to consistently provide supervision, verbal cues or assistance with meals per the individualized assessments and plan of care and did not develop a process to document if supplements, alternative meals, or snacks were offered for 1 of 3 residents (Resident 58) reviewed for nutrition. Resident 58 experienced a severe weight loss of 18 pounds (lbs.), a 8.73 percent (%) of body weight in less than a month. This failure placed residents at risk of further weight loss, decline in nutritional status and decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that 3 of 3 residents (Residents 9,16 and 26) reviewed for respiratory care, were provided care consistent with professional standards of practice. Failure of the facility to ensure oxygen (O2) delivery per physician's order, monitor, assess and address resident responses to O2 therapy (Resident 9), and ensure ordered Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP, non-invasive ventilation machine that involves the administration of air usually through the nose by an external device at a predetermined level of pressure) equipment was in place when ordered, and to ensure CPAPs were cleaned and parts replaced per manufacturers recommendations. These failures placed residents at risk of respiratory infection, respiratory distress, lack of restful sleep and diminished lung condition.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure infection prevention practices were followed for 1 of 2 residents (Resident 7) reviewed for wounds, and for 1 of 4 residents (Resident 68) reviewed for transmission-based precautions. These failures placed residents at risk for infection due to cross contamination.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident choices/preferences regarding their bathing schedule were honored for 4 of 6 sampled residents (Residents 31, 50, 69, and 276) and failed to honor Resident 7's preference to lay down after a meal. The facility's failure to accommodate resident choices/preferences related to bathing and daily schedules placed residents at risk for feelings of un-cleanliness, powerlessness, diminished self-worth, and a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wrote<FLOORING> In an observation on 02/25/2025 at 8:31 AM, the hall floor outside room [ROOM NUMBER] had and L shaped approximately 5-inch by 6-inch gouge down to the sub floor. In an interview on 02/28/2025 at 8:47 AM, Staff Y, Maintenance Director stated they were aware of the gouges in the flooring throughout the halls and rooms and were trying to develop a plan to repair them. Staff Y stated they did have some extra flooring in the attic to use as replacements, but they were unsure if they had enough to replace all the spots. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to review and revise the care plans to accurately reflect resident conditions and needs for 3 of 16 residents (Residents 34, 50 and 56) reviewed for care planning. These failures placed residents at risk for unmet care needs and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to have sufficient staff to provide and supervise care as evidenced by information provided by 7 resident interviews (Residents 3, 9, 22, 50, 57, 59 and 63) and one family interview (Resident 5) in three of three hallways and Resident Council minutes. The facility had insufficient staff to ensure residents received prompt call light response and assistance to meet the needs of the residents in accordance with resident preferences. These failures placed residents at risk for unmet care needs and negative outcomes.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a system in which resident's records were complete, accurate, and accessible, for 4 of 4 residents (Residents 1, 5, 34, and 276) reviewed for accurate and complete medical records. The facility failed to ensure the residents medical records contained hospice provider notes and orders, lab monitoring results, and complete blood sugar monitoring for residents. Failure tomaintain complete and accurate medical records placed residents at risk for medical complications, unmet care needs, and for diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff were com-pliant with Infection Prevention and Control Guidelines and standards of practice for 1 of 5 nurses (Staff C) during medication administration, 1 of 1 resident (Resident 50) during catheter care, and for 1 of 1 resident (Resident 14) reviewed for transmission-based precautions (TBP) of a resident who had tested positive for Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). The facility failed to ensure staff followed appropriate infection control practices during medication administration and performed appropriate hand hygiene during urinary catheter care. The facility failed to ensure the staff were wearing appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) in accordance with recommended national standards. This failure placed all residents and staff at risk for potential infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide the necessary assistance for oral care, and bathing for 3 of 5 residents (Residents 20, 69 and 276) dependent on staff to ensure their needs were met. This failed practice placed residents at increased risk for increased risk for embarrassment, diminished dignity, negative outcomes including poor quality of life and psychosocial harm.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure the daily nurse staffing information was being posted in a place readily accessible to residents/visitors and included the required information on 2 of 6 days (02/22/2025 and 02/23/2025) of the recertification survey. This failure placed residents, family members and visitors at risk of not being fully informed of current staffing levels and resident census information.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure a system was in place to accurately reconcile controlled medications in 1 of 5 medication carts reviewed for narcotic storage/reconciliation. This failure placed the facility at risk for potential loss and/or drug diversion of the controlled medication.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure 2 of 5 sampled residents (5 and 34) were free from unnecessary psychotropic medications (drugs that affect brain activities associated with mental processes and behavior) as required. The facility failed to ensure a medical provider assessed and documented a rationale for extended use of an as necessary (PRN) psychotropic medication for use over 14 days and failed to monitor for appropriate symptoms. These failures placed the residents at risk for medication-related complications and for receiving unnecessary psychotropic medication.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure that drugs and biologicals were removed when expired in 2 of 5 medication carts, and 1 of 2 medication refrigerators. The facility failed to ensure Schedule II-V (Substances with a high potential for abuse which may lead to severe physical or psychological dependence) controlled medications were in a separate locked permanently affixed compartment not accessible to others. Additionally, 2 medication carts were found unlocked without a nurse close by. These failures placed residents at risk for receiving expired medication and vaccines, and risk of having unintended access to drugs that should have been securely stored.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide timely laboratory results to meet the needs of two of five residents (1, 5 and 279) reviewed for medication usage. These failed practices had the potential for negative complications related to delay of obtaining and follow up of laboratory results along with a risk for medical complications, related to a lack of monitoring chronic medical conditions and delayed identification and treatment of underlying health conditions.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure a physician order was obtained and routine cleaning was provided for a CPAP machine (non-invasive ventilation machine that involves the administration of air usually through the nose by an external device at a predetermined level of pressure) for 1 of 4 residents (Resident 1) reviewed for respiratory care. This failed practice placed the resident at risk of respiratory infection, respiratory distress, lack of restful sleep and diminished quality of life
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide the assistance with activities of daily living (ADL's) for 1of 5 sampled residents (Residents 1) reviewed for activities of daily living. The facility failed to provide residents, who were dependent on staff for assistance with hygiene including oral care, meal assistance, and consistent monitoring for incontinence placed residents at risk for diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide assistance with activities of daily living to include personal hygiene and bathing for 2 of 3 sampled dependent (Residents 1 and 3) residents reviewed for activities of daily living (ADL's). The facility's failure to provide the residents, who were dependent on staff for assistance with grooming and bathing placed residents at risk for embarrassment, poor hygiene, unmet care needs and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the facility identified and provided the needed care and services for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident 2) reviewed for the medication management of constipation. This failed practice placed residents at risk for bowel constipation, fecal impactions, and a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Dietary Manager (Staff Q) had proper qualifications. This failure placed residents at risk of receiving dietary services from staff without the required competencies and skills to carry out food and nutrition services.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide for a resident council group to meet privately, to voice concerns with the group's invited guests without facility disruption and interference on 1 of 1 resident council meetings, as the resident group had expressed concern about for years. This failure placed the residents at risk for unmet care needs and prevented the residents' rights to have privacy to meet to express concerns and enhance the residents' quality of life at the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure written notification of facility-initiated transfer and/or discharge was completed for 3 of 5 sampled residents (Residents 16, 18, and 77) reviewed for hospitalizations. The facility failed to ensure the transfer/discharge notice with all the required information was provided in a timely, practical manner upon an emergent transfer to the hospital. This failure placed residents and their representatives at risk of not receiving accurate information related to resident's discharge, and potential for diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure the required notice of a bed hold was provided for 3 of 5 sampled residents (Residents 16, 18, and 77) reviewed for hospitalizations. This failure placed residents at risk of being uninformed of their rights regarding bed holds.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide assistance with activities of daily living to include personal hygiene and bathing for 4 of 4 sampled dependent residents (Residents 1, 8, 2, and 278), reviewed for activities of daily living (ADL's). Facility failure to provide the resident's, who were dependent on staff for assistance with grooming and showers placed residents at risk for embarrassment, poor hygiene, unmet care needs and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to address required documentation and communication for Advance Directives (AD) to reflect resident desires for 2 of 2 resident's (Resident 46 and 55) reviewed for AD. This failed practice placed residents at risk of losing their right to have their desired wishes and intervention followed in the event of a healthcare emergency.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident's Power of Attorney (POA) was notified timely for 1 of 2 residents (Resident 38) reviewed for notification of change of condition. The facility failed to notify the POA there was a change in condition that resulted in a speech therapy (ST) evaluation, a down grade in texture to the resident's diet, and there was a medication error in which the resident was administered unprescribed medications. This failure placed residents POA at risk of not being informed of resident status and potential for receiving less than optimal care.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement policies and procedures for ensuring the reporting of allegations of potential abuse or neglect for 2 of 3 sampled residents (Resident 25 and 40) reviewed for allegations of abuse and/or neglect. The failure of staff to identify, report, and initiate an investigation for allegations placed residents at risk of being victims of unidentified and uninvestigated abuse and/or neglect and limited the thoroughness of investigations.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 5 sampled resident (Resident 21) reviewed for the Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR - a federally required screening of all individuals who has both an Intellectual Disability or Related Condition and a serious mental illness prior to admission to a Medicaid-certified nursing facility or a significant change of condition) process when Resident 21 had a positive Level I PASRR (a screening to determine if a resident may have a SMI/ID related condition and if positive a Level II PASRR is required) and a Level II PASRR (an in-depth evaluation to determine whether the resident requires specialized rehabilitation services) was not completed or followed up on after referral. This failure placed the resident at risk for unmet care needs, unmet mental health needs, and a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to review and revise care plans for 2 of 3 sampled residents (Resident 2 and 8) reviewed for nutrition, and 1 of 5 sampled residents (Resident 58) reviewed for unnecessary medications. These failures placed the residents at risk for lack of consistent interventions, unmet care needs, adverse health effects, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the facility identified and provided needed care and services for 2 of 2 sampled residents (Residents 10 and 58) reviewed for medication management parameters and 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident 1) reviewed for skin management. The facility failed to ensure appropriate lab test and weight monitoring were completed for medication management and failed to identify and treat a skin rash. These failures placed residents at risk for receiving medications outside of suggested parameters for their heart rate, weight gain, and for untreated skin conditions or infection and a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents who were trauma survivors received culturally competent, trauma-informed care in accordance with professional standards of practice for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident 1) reviewed for trauma informed care. The facility failed to educate 4 of 5 staff (Staff N, P, W and Y), assess, monitor, and care plan residents' 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). This failure placed the resident at risk for unidentified triggers and re-traumatization.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate of less than 5 percent. Failure of 1 of 3 Licensed Nurses (Staff H) to properly administer 2 of 29 medications for 1 of 3 residents (Resident 25) observed during medication pass resulted in a medication error rate of 6.9%. These failures placed the residents at risk for not receiving medications as prescribed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure medications were secured and not accessible to residents and consumption of medications during observations of 2 of 3 nurses (Staff H and X). These failures placed the residents at risk of adverse side effects from receiving pain medications too close to the next dose that potentially could cause undesirable side effects and potential drug misuse.
Inspectors wrote<MEDICATION ADMINISTRATION> In an observation on 03/25/2024 at 8:53 AM, Staff C was observed to administered medications to Resident 26 at the bedside. Staff C placed two medication cups with medication pills in each on the over the bed table in front of the resident. Staff C then asked the resident if they could reposition the resident to safely take their medications, Staff C then placed their bare hands on the resident's pillow behind their head and placed it on the side of the mattress. Staff C then placed their bare hands on the shoulders of the resident and pulled the resident over to the side to sit up straight. The resident was observed to pick up the medication cup and place it to their mouth, they then tapped cup with their finger so the pills would fall out of cup and into their mouth. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to prevent verbal and physical abuse for 1 of 4 sample residents (Resident 1), reviewed for abuse. Resident 2, who had known verbal and physical aggressive behaviors toward residents related to their dementia was verbally and physically abusive to Resident 1. This failed practice placed Resident 1 and all other residents at potential risk for verbal and physical abuse and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to notify 1 of 1 resident's (Resident 1) wound care provider of the resident's refusal of the ordered wound care treatment. This failed practiced placed residents at risk for health complications and diminished quality of life.
31 fire safety citations on file: 7 on January 16, 2026, 13 on February 28, 2025, 11 on March 26, 2024.
CMS lists no fines or payment denials against this home in the last three years. The national average is 0.9 fines per home.
Hours of care per resident per day, from the payroll records every home sends CMS. Higher means more staff time with each resident.
| Measure | This home | Washington | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 3.98 | 4.36 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 1.03 | 0.94 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.58 | 3.80 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.26 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.70 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 48.0% | 45.1% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 44.4% | 45.4% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 4.14 hours a day for residents as sick as this home's (its case-mix figure). The staffing star compares the two.
Every nursing home sends CMS its staff hours for each day (the Payroll Based Journal). Here they are added up by quarter. The latest quarter is the one behind the figures above. In January to March 2026, nursing staff hours per resident were 4.15 on weekdays and 3.58 on weekends, 14% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 4.7% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.88 in April to June 2025 to 3.98 in January to March 2026.
| Quarter | All nursing staff | Registered nurses | Weekdays | Weekends | Contract staff share | Days with no RN hours | Residents a day |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.98 | 1.03 | 4.15 | 3.58 | 4.7% | 0 of 90 | 69 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.82 | 0.95 | 3.98 | 3.39 | 5.0% | 0 of 92 | 74 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.80 | 0.93 | 4.04 | 3.21 | 0.1% | 0 of 92 | 74 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.88 | 1.02 | 4.05 | 3.44 | 1.9% | 0 of 91 | 71 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Washington, Jan to Mar 2026 | 4.21 | 0.90 | 4.44 | 3.66 | 3.7% | 0.1% of days |
Hours per resident per day: staff hours in the quarter divided by resident days (the daily census CMS derives from resident assessments). Registered nurses include the director of nursing and RNs with administrative duties; aides include nurse aides in training and medication aides, as in CMS's own staffing measure. How these are calculated.
Staff pay reports
No staff pay figure for this home has passed review yet. A figure appears only after at least 5 reports from at least 3 different people, sent over at least 60 days, have passed review.
| Job | Median | Middle half | Employed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Washington, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $23.65 | $22.59 to $27.85 | 30,270 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $39.98 | $36.98 to $45.18 | 6,780 |
| Registered nurses | $59.71 | $49.57 to $64.54 | 69,260 |
| United States, nursing care facilities | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $20.67 | $17.91 to $22.55 | 534,270 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $33.86 | $30.05 to $37.40 | 188,210 |
| Registered nurses | $41.11 | $37.85 to $47.68 | 142,270 |
Hourly wages; the middle half runs from the 25th to the 75th percentile. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, May 2025. BLS has no separate estimate for medication aides. These are survey estimates for whole occupations, not figures for any one home.
The measures CMS uses for the quality star. Lower is better for every one of them.
| Measure | This home | Washington | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 20.0 | 14.2 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.4 | 1.6 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.7 | 2.6 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 1.3 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 19.4 | 17.2 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.4 | 4.3 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.0 | 15.1 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 16.1 | 19.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 14.7 | 13.4 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.6 | 1.3 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.7 | 1.5 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Alderwood Park Health and Rehab of Cascadia's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (51.4% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
51.4% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · Washington: 71 better, 16 worse
Rate of successful return to home or community from a SNF (risk-standardized discharge to community rate). Higher is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 171 eligible stays.
8.4% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Washington: 7 better, 0 worse
Rate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 169 eligible stays.
6.1% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 7.1% · Washington: 4 better, 0 worse
Percentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2023 to September 2024. 140 eligible stays.
36.5% this home
Median of homes: Washington61.4% · US 56.6%
Percentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 107 residents counted.
0.0% this home
Median of homes: Washington0.0% · US 0.0%
Percentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay. Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 136 residents counted.
0.8% this home
Median of homes: Washington1.4% · US 1.7%
Percentage of residents with pressure ulcers or pressure injuries that are new or worsened (adjusted rate). Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 136 residents counted.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Median of homes: Washington98.3% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 11 residents counted.
Source: CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program - Provider Data, released 2026-09-30. Better, no different and worse are CMS's own comparisons with the national rate, after adjusting for how sick residents were. Medians of homes and the state counts are worked out by us from the same file.
Legal business name: BELLINGHAM NORTH OF CASCADIA LLC. CMS links this home to Cascadia Healthcare, a group of 47 nursing homes averaging 3.1 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cascadia Washington Operations LLC | Direct ownership interest | Organization | 05/01/2022 | |
| Cascadia Hc Group LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 06/05/2025 | |
| Cascadia Healthcare LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 05/01/2022 | |
| Cascadia Holdco LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 06/05/2025 | |
| Hammond, Owen | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 05/01/2022 | |
| Laforte, Stephen | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 06/05/2025 | |
| Nelson, Timothy | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 06/05/2025 | |
| Bellingham 2726 Realty, LLC | 5% or greater security interest | Organization | 06/05/2025 | |
| White Oak Healthcare Finance LLC | 5% or greater security interest | Organization | 08/11/2022 | |
| Cascadia Services LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 01/08/2025 | |
| Dhaliwal, Navdeep | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/09/2023 | |
| Hammond, Owen | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 05/01/2022 | |
| Laforte, Stephen | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 06/05/2025 | |
| Nelson, Timothy | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 06/05/2025 | |
| Rudd, Joseph | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 05/01/2023 | |
| Bellingham 2726 Realty, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 06/05/2025 | |
| Cascadia Services LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/08/2025 | |
| Dhaliwal, Navdeep | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/14/2025 | |
| Rudd, Joseph | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/14/2025 |
As listed in the CMS ownership file, which names owners with a 5% or greater stake and the people and companies with operational or managerial control.
Chosen from this home's own inspection record.
These are the official offices in Washington. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.