Home / Washington / Everett
916 Pacific Avenue 3rd-5th Floors, Everett, WA 98201 · Snohomish County · (425) 259-5508
80 certified beds, about 74 residents a day · Non profit - Other · Medicare and Medicaid since 1992
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 505404 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on May 18, 2026, inspectors cited 14 health deficiencies (the Washington average is 15.8, the national average 9.2).
Of 57 health citations since April 2024, 1 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $42,477 in the last three years; the largest was $42,477, and the latest is dated April 17, 2024.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 4.80 hours per resident per day, against 4.36 across Washington and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 1.12 of those hours.
36.6% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Washington average 45.1%).
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 57 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to maintain essential equipment in safe operating condition. The facility failed to adequately identify fluctuating dishwasher rinse temperatures and ensure maintenance/repairs were successful for one of one facility high temperature dishwasher. They failed to ensure Hoyer lifts (mechanical device that assists with transfer of residents from one surface to another) and sit to stand lifts (mobility device used to help residents who are partially weight bearing from sitting position to a standing position) for one of three halls (3 South) batteries were consistently monitored and repaired for safe operation. These failures placed residents at risk for food borne illness, accidents, and overall decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a follow up response to concerns voiced by 1 of 1 resident groups (Resident Council). The failure to respond to the Resident Council about their concerns left the issues unresolved and resulted in the Resident Council process being ineffective at improving resident quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide instructions upon discharge, evaluate the need for home health support or equipment needs, and make arrangements for home medications to ensure a safe discharge for 1 of 2 residents (Resident 88) reviewed for discharge to the community and failed to provide appropriate notifications in writing to the resident/representative and the ombudsman (neutral resident advocate) for 3 of 4 residents (Residents 9, 11, and 88) reviewed for discharge process. These failures placed residents at risk of an unsafe discharge, risk of medical complications, and risk of not being informed of their rights regarding the transfer/discharge process.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure expired medications were discarded in one of two medication room refrigerators and sharps containers emptied after reaching the full line, temperatures were documented and monitored for vaccines located in one of two medication room vaccine refrigerators, and failed ensure medications were secured and not accessible to the public or residents for one of one residents (Resident 93) whose medications were at their bedside. These failures place all residents at risk for receiving compromised and/or ineffective medications and medical solutions, which potentially result to the residents not receiving the therapeutic effect of the medications, and or possibly experience adverse side effects.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to allow residents to make choices about daily routines for 1 of 2 residents (Resident 12) reviewed for choices. The facility's failure to accommodate resident choices placed residents at risk for a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that 1out of 5 residents (Resident 84) reviewed for Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR - a federally required screening of all individuals for Intellectual Disability or Related Condition and a Serious Mental Illness prior to admission) process. The facility failed to incorporate PASRR Level II recommendations into the comprehensive care plan and failed to implement individualized activities to meet the resident's specialized behavioral health needs. This failure placed the resident at risk for psychological decline, unmet psychosocial needs, and lack of specialized services.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify the State PASRR (Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review-an assessment used to identify residents with Serious Mental Illness [SMI] or intellectual disabilities (ID) were not inappropriately placed in a nursing facility for long term care) Coordinator after a significant change in behavior status for 1 of 5 residents (Resident 40) reviewed for PASRR. This failure placed the resident at risk for unmet mental health services necessary to obtain the resident's highest level of psychosocial well-being and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure oral hygiene was performed for 1 of 1 resident (Resident 41) reviewed for Activities of Daily Living (ADLs). This failure placed the resident at risk for poor oral hygiene, dental complications, decreased self-esteem, and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure quality of care were met for 1 of 2 residents (Resident 12) reviewed for vision, and 1 of 5 residents (Resident 84) reviewed for unnecessary medication review. The facility failed to place essential items including the call light and television remote control within the resident's unaffected vision field; failed to ensure physician-ordered parameters were followed for blood pressure medication administration. These failures placed the residents at risk for medication errors, unmet needs, and decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to provide a call light (a device to request help as needed) within reach for one of one resident (Resident 20) reviewed for call light accessibility and failed to ensure one of two residents (Resident 41) were comprehensively assessed and interventions implemented to prevent an avoidable fall with injury. These failures placed residents at risk for accidents, avoidable falls, and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident 44) reviewed for use and care of a catheter (a flexible tube inserted into the bladder to drain urine), received appropriate care and services, to minimize the risk of associated urinary tract infections. This failure placed residents at risk for discomfort, loss of dignity, continued urinary tract infections and other health complications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure 1 of 1 resident (Resident 55) reviewed for respiratory care received their physician ordered Continuous Positive Airway Pressure machine (CPAP -a machine that sends a steady flow of pressurized air into the nose and mouth to keep the airways open and helps you breath normally while sleeping). This failed practice placed the residents at risk of respiratory distress, lack of restful sleep and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide medically related social services and to advocate for 1 of 4 cognitively impaired residents (Resident 81) reviewed for advanced directives. The facility failed to advocate and educate the resident of legal options for an advanced directive and failed to identify other family that may be an alternative decision maker per state law which placed the resident at risk of not having their rights and wishes honored.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure speech therapy services were provided for 1 of 2 residents (Resident 91) reviewed for specialized rehabilitative services. This failure prevented residents from attaining and maintaining their highest practicable level of physical, functional and psycho-social well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to coordinate Home Health (HH) services, provide a medication list, and complete discharge instructions for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident 1) reviewed for discharges. Failure to arrange HH services and provide a medication list placed residents at risk of unmet care needs, and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure medically related social services were provided for 8 of 8 residents (Residents 20, 28, 39, 277, 278, 324, 325, and 329) reviewed for social services. The facility failed to ensure residents received support with care planning process (Residents 28, 39, 325, and 329), failed to ensure residents were provided support to formulate their advanced directive options (Residents 325, and 329), failed to ensure residents received support with discharge planning (Residents 277, and 278), and failed to ensure referrals and recommendations for appropriate mental health services were completed (Residents 20 and 324). This failure placed residents at risk of unmet social service needs, unsafe care, psychosocial decline, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents and/or their representatives were offered the opportunity to participate in care conferences (a collaborative care plan meeting where a resident's care is discussed and coordinated by a team of health care providers, family members and residents) for 2 of 6 sampled residents (Residents 325 and 329) reviewed for participation in care planning. This failure placed residents at risk of not being allowed to be involved and informed about care and services and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure an advance directive (a written instruction, such as a living will or Durable Power of Attorney [DPOA] for health care [a document delegating to an agent the authority to make health care decisions in case the individual delegating the authority subsequently becomes incapable to do so]) was obtained and completed for 3 of 24 residents (Residents 325, 329 and 55), reviewed for advance directives. This failure placed the residents and/or their representatives at risk for losing their right to have their preferences honored to receive or refuse/discontinue care according to their choice.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were informed in writing of their potential liability for payment related to Medicare services ending for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident 45) reviewed for Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notice (SNF ABN). This failure placed the residents at risk of not having adequate information to make care and financial decisions during their continued stay.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to have a system in place that ensured grievances were addressed and resolved in response to residents' verbal conveyance of concerns for 2 of 3 resident council's (February and March 2025), who verbalized complaints during a Resident Council (RC) meeting and failed to follow the grievance process for 2 of 2 residents (Resident 12 and 35) who voiced grievances. These failures led to residents repeatedly reporting the same care issues without resolution and placed them at risk of feeling frustrated, unimportant, with diminished self-worth and decreased quality of life. Findings Included . Review of the facility policy titled Resident and Family Grievances dated October 2024 showed the social services director was designated as the Grievance Official and was responsible for overseeing the grievance process. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure that potential restraints were appropriately assessed for safety, consented, and care planned for 1 of 2 residents (Resident 28) reviewed for physical restraints. This failure placed residents at risk for unidentified risks and care needs, and for a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review the facility failed to identify and report an allegation of abuse and/or neglect for 3 of 5 sampled residents (Residents 28, 54, and 276) when reviewed for abuse/neglect. This failure placed the residents at risk of further abuse, psychological distress, and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to conduct a thorough investigation for 3 of 5 resident investigations (Resident 28, 44 and 54) reviewed for accidents and allegations of potential abuse and/or neglect. The facility failed to identify the root cause, and all contributing factors related to allegations of abuse and/or neglect placed residents at risk for injury, and additional abuse/neglect.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Preadmission Screening and Resident Reviews (PASARR-an assessment to ensure individuals with Serious Mental Illness [SMI] or Intellectual/Developmental Disabilities [ID/DD] are not inappropriately placed in nursing homes for long term care) Level I was completed for 1 of 5 residents (Resident 324), reviewed for PASARR screening. This failure placed the resident at risk for not receiving the care and services appropriate for their needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) assessments were completed for residents following significant change in status or with newly evident or possible serious mental disorders for 1 of 5 residents (Resident 55) reviewed. This failure resulted in a potential delay in access to level 2 PASSR services and decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure professional standards of practice were implemented for 3 or 3 residents (Residents 278, 328, and 329) reviewed for oxygen therapy. Failure to obtain a doctor's order prior to administering oxygen placed residents at risk for potential adverse outcomes.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure treatment and care was provided in accordance with professional standards of practice for 1 of 1 resident (Resident 20) reviewed for mood and behavior. The facility failed to ensure a psychiatric evaluation was reviewed, and implementation of mental health recommendations for treatment of depression. These failures placed the residents at risk for declining their mental health and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure restorative therapy services (a personalized training program to help people maintain or regain their ability to do everyday tasks, like walking, dressing, and eating) were implemented to prevent avoidable reduction of range of motion (ROM, how far you can move a joint in any direction) for 1 of 1 residents (Resident 35), reviewed for restorative therapy and limited ROM. This failure placed residents at risk for loss of ROM, deconditioning, and loss of independence.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure appropriate safety interventions were developed and implemented for 2 of 3 residents (Resident 234 and 328) who had dysphasia (difficulty swallowing) and were at risk for aspiration (inhalation of food). This failure placed residents at risk for aspiration, increased health complications and a diminished quality of life. Findings Included . Review of the facility policy titled, Refusal of Medications, and Treatment Refusal or Non-compliance with Care, dated 08/22/2011, showed: Documentation pertaining to a resident's refusal of treatment shall include each time the resident refused his or her treatment and resident's condition and any adverse effects due to such refusal. The date and time the physician was notified as well as the physician's response. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure that 1 of 1 residents (Resident 35) who were incontinent of bladder and continent of bowel received appropriate treatment and services to restore continence to the extent possible. This failure placed residents at an increased risk of urinary tract infections, discomfort, loss of dignity, and decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 5 residents (Resident 55) reviewed for unnecessary medication were free from unnecessary psychotropic medications (drugs that affect mental processes, emotions and behaviors). The facility failed to ensure valid diagnosis for the use of psychotropic medication, they failed to obtain consent for the antidepressant medication and failed to monitor for any adverse side effects (ASE) for the psychotropic medications. These failures placed residents at risk for receiving unnecessary psychotropic medications, for adverse side effects and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a treatment cart (containing prescribed topicals, ointments, and wound cleaning agents) was secured in a locked storage area and inaccessible to unauthorized staff and residents for 1 of 4 treatment carts (3 South Unit) observed for medication cart review. These failures placed residents at risk for unauthorized access to medications and treatments that should be securely stored.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to assess dietary preferences, maintain accurate documentation of nutritional intake of meals and supplements, consistently offer substitutes or replacement meals when residents ate less than 50% of a meal, notify the physician of significant weight loss, perform consistent and accurate weights, assess and offer culturally appropriate meals, and follow and update care plans as needed, for 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident 46) reviewed for nutrition/weight loss. Resident 46 experienced severe weight loss of 11.8% weight loss in 34 days. This failed practice placed residents at nutritional risk and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wrote<HAND HYGIENE> RESIDENT 422 Resident 422 admitted to the facility on [DATE]. In an observation/interview on 06/07/2024 at 7:43 AM, Staff M, Licensed Practical Nurse/Resident Care Manager, was observed performing wound care on Resident 422's left heel pressure injury and did not perform hand hygiene after removing their gloves and donning a new pair of gloves during the procedure. In an interview Staff M was unable to provide any information about their lack of hand hygiene. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the designated Infection Preventionist (IP) met the qualifications for experience, education, and training or certification for the role to assume responsibility for the facility's Infection Prevention Control Program (IPCP). This failure placed residents, family members, and staff at risk for unmet infection control issues and lack of oversite of the facility staff's infection control practices.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to obtain, provide, and/or assist with completing Advance Directives for 4 of 5 sampled residents (Residents 22, 32, 62, and 65) reviewed for Advance Directives. This failure placed residents at risk for losing their right to have their healthcare preferences and/or decisions honored.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment for 1 of 2 floors (3rd floor). The failure to ensure resident's floors were clean and free of debris, and utility and housekeeping rooms were secured left residents at risk for a diminished quality of life, and a less than homelike environment.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR - a federal requirement to help ensure that individuals who had a mental disorder or intellectual disabilities were offered the most appropriate setting for their needs [in the community, a nursing facility, or acute care setting]; and receive the services they need in those settings), was followed for 4 of 8 sampled residents (Resident 7, 42, 21 and 26). Failure to coordinate Resident 7, 42, 21, and 26 for Level II (an in-depth evaluation to determine whether the resident requires specialized rehabilitation services) services as indicated placed residents at risk for not receiving care and services in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to develop and implement comprehensive, person-centered care plans to meet the needs and preferences for 2 of 8 sample residents (Resident 32 and 6) reviewed for Level II PASRR (an in-depth evaluation to determine if a resident has a serious mental illness [SMI], Intellectual Disability [ID] or Related Condition [RC]and is completed by a representative from the state intellectual disability authority), 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident 65) reviewed for discharge planning, 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident 42) reviewed for emotion/behaviors, 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident 26) reviewed for dental, and 1 of 3 sample residents (Resident 422) reviewed for accidents care plans. This failure placed residents at risk for not receiving needed and preferred care and services and a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to revise comprehensive care plans for 4 of 18 sampled residents (Residents 8, 21, 26 and 58), reviewed for care plan revision. The failure to revise care plans for hospice services, resident caregiver preference, edema management, and use of psychotropic medication placed the residents at risk for unmet care needs and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the consultant pharmacist conducted thorough monthly medication regimen reviews (MRRs), identified and reported medication-related irregularities for 3 of 5 sampled residents (Resident 18, 21 and 26) reviewed. The failure to act on irregularities identified by the consulting pharmacist placed residents at risk for medication-related adverse consequences and for receiving unnecessary psychotropic medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure 3 of 3 Certified Nursing Assistants (NACs) (Staff G, H and I) reviewed for training, had the required 12 hours per year of in-services. This failure placed residents at risk of less than competent care and services from staff.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure the resident was evaluated, assessed and a physician order was obtained for safe administration of medications for 1 of 1 resident (Resident 46) reviewed for clinically appropriate self-administration of medications. This failed practice placed the resident at risk for adverse medication interactions, complications, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to complete accurate assessments for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident 58) reviewed for dental concerns, and 2 of 8 sampled residents (Resident 6 and 32 ), reviewed for Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR - a federally required screening of all individuals who has both an Intellectual Disability [ID] or Related Condition [RC] and a serious mental illness [SMI] prior to admission to a Medicaid-certified nursing facility or a significant change of condition). These failures placed residents at risk for unmet care needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR - a federally required screening of all individuals identified with an Intellectual Disability [ID] or Related Condition [RC] or a serious mental illness [SMI] prior to admission to a Medicaid-certified nursing facility or a significant change of condition) form was completed according to the guidelines specified for 3 of 8 sampled residents (Residents 2, 6 and 32) reviewed for unnecessary medications. Incomplete or inaccurate PASRRs placed residents at risk for inappropriate placement and/or lack of access to specialized services for residents with identified serious mental health indicators or intellectual disability.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident 30) reviewed for Pressure Ulcers (PU) were provided care planned interventions they required for the prevention or worsening of PU. This failure to implement pressure reducing devices in accordance with physician's orders placed residents at risk for PU development, worsening of PU, pain, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents with limited range of motion (ROM) received the necessary services to maintain their level of functioning and/or prevent decline for 2 of 2 sample residents (Residents 14 and 26) reviewed for limited range of motion. This failure placed the residents at risk for decreased ROM and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to obtain needed services from an outside entity for 1 of 2 sampled resident's (Resident 26) reviewed for medically related social services. The facility failed to coordinate and schedule a dermatology appointment after a referral was made for Resident 26 which placed residents at risk for unmet care needs and decrease in their mental, physical, and psychosocial wellbeing.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide a written notice to the resident, resident's representative(s), and representative of the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman of an emergency transfer for 3 of 5 residents' (Resident's1, 2, and 3) reviewed for hospitalizations. This failure did not afford residents and/or their representatives to make informed decisions about transfers and prohibited access to an advocate who could inform the resident/representative of their options and rights.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide a bed hold notice in writing at the time of a resident transfer to the hospital or within 24 hours of transfer to the hospital for 3 of 5 residents (Residents 1, 2, and 3) reviewed for hospitalizations. This failed practice placed residents or their representative at risk for lack of knowledge regarding the right to hold their bed while they were at the hospital.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, and interview, the facility failed to complete and transmit resident assessment data to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) within the required timeframes for 1 of 5 residents (Resident 1) whose Minimum Data Set (MDS - an assessment tool) assessments were reviewed for timeliness in transmission/submission. The facility's lack of an effective system in ensuring the MDS assessments and tracking records are completed and transmitted timely as required placed all residents of the facility at risk for unmet care needs and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain a homelike environment in resident rooms for 2 of 3 sampled residents (Resident 4, and 7) reviewed. The failure to have functioning lights over the sinks in resident rooms and to ensure the soap dispenser had soap placed residents at risk for diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to resolve resident grievances for 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident 2) reviewed for grievances. The failure to resolve resident grievances placed residents at risk for ongoing unmet care needs, missed activities, and unresolved missing property.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide necessary care and services in accordance with professional standards of practice for 2 of 4 sampled residents (Residents 1 and 2) reviewed. The failure to obtain necessary physician progress notes and orders, and to revise the resident's medications accordingly, and to provide necessary transfer assistance placed residents at risk for unmet care needs, adverse medication-related outcomes, missed activities, and for diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to obtain and file clinical laboratory reports for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident 1) reviewed for lab results. The failure to ensure resident's laboratory results were filed in the resident's clinical record placed them at risk for unmet care needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to obtain and file a radiology report for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident 1) reviewed for radiology results. The failure to ensure residents radiology results were filed in their clinical record placed them at risk for unmet care needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain complete, accurate, and accessible clinical records for 3 of 4 sampled residents (Resident 1, 2, and 4) reviewed for care and services. The failure to maintain clinical records in accordance with professional standards of practice placed residents at risk for unmet care needs and diminished quality of life.
27 fire safety citations on file: 5 on May 18, 2026, 8 on April 21, 2025, 14 on June 12, 2024.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| April 17, 2024 | Fine | $42,477 |
A payment denial means Medicare and Medicaid stopped paying for new admissions for that period.
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) | 4.80 | 4.36 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 1.12 | 0.94 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 4.12 | 3.80 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.84 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.83 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 36.6% | 45.1% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 34.8% | 45.4% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 5.23 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 5.08 on weekdays and 4.12 on weekends, 19% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.2% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 5.07 in April to June 2025 to 4.80 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 | 4.80 | 1.12 | 5.08 | 4.12 | 0.2% | 0 of 90 | 74 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 4.95 | 1.25 | 5.30 | 4.05 | 0.3% | 0 of 92 | 75 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 5.06 | 1.21 | 5.44 | 4.09 | 0.4% | 0 of 92 | 72 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 5.07 | 1.12 | 5.37 | 4.31 | 1.0% | 0 of 91 | 73 |
| 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. If you work here, your report helps start one.
| 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 | 9.7 | 14.2 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.6 | 1.6 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.9 | 2.6 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.2 | 1.3 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 16.0 | 17.2 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.6 | 4.3 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.9 | 15.1 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 15.0 | 19.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 8.6 | 13.4 | 12.0 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Bethany at Pacific's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it better than the national rate (62.0% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
62.0% this home
Better than 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. 212 eligible stays.
10.3% 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. 199 eligible stays.
5.4% 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. 117 eligible stays.
73.8% 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. 103 residents counted.
0.8% 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. 127 residents counted.
0.0% 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. 127 residents counted.
98.3% this home
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. 59 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: BETHANY OF THE NORTHWEST.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Degroodt, Patricia | Corporate director | Individual | 02/01/2023 | |
| Dobler, Robert | Corporate director | Individual | 01/23/2025 | |
| Gay, Jeff | Corporate director | Individual | 04/27/2017 | |
| Ihle, Loren | Corporate director | Individual | 01/23/2025 | |
| Jacobson, Steven | Corporate director | Individual | 06/27/2018 | |
| Knudson, Veronica | Corporate director | Individual | 01/23/2025 | |
| Koenig, David | Corporate director | Individual | 03/01/2007 | |
| Nesse, Janice | Corporate director | Individual | 01/23/2025 | |
| Nicholson, Eric | Corporate director | Individual | 10/26/2023 | |
| Rohde, Tom | Corporate director | Individual | 06/07/2018 | |
| Seyed Aliroteh, Mahdiesadat | Corporate director | Individual | 04/04/2024 | |
| Stave, Lawrence | Corporate director | Individual | 01/23/2025 | |
| Tiu, Susan | Corporate director | Individual | 01/03/2019 | |
| Wallin, Terri | Corporate director | Individual | 07/23/2020 | |
| Scrivens, Joseph | Corporate officer | Individual | 12/06/2019 | |
| Basada, Marlita | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 05/01/2024 | |
| Bauguess, Tristine | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/25/2025 | |
| Mann, Harpreet | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/25/2025 | |
| Scrivens, Joseph | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/06/2019 | |
| Bethany of the Northwest | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/22/2025 | |
| Basada, Marlita | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 05/01/2024 | |
| Bauguess, Tristine | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 03/22/2017 | |
| Mann, Harpreet | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/01/2022 | |
| Scrivens, Joseph | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/06/2019 |
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.