Home / Washington / Everett
2235 Lake Heights Drive, Everett, WA 98208 · Snohomish County · (425) 338-3000
151 certified beds, about 116 residents a day · Non profit - Church related · Medicare and Medicaid since 1992
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 505403 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on March 20, 2026, inspectors cited 7 health deficiencies (the Washington average is 15.8, the national average 9.2).
Of 35 health citations since October 2023, 2 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists 2 fines totaling $121,447 in the last three years; the largest was $69,947, and the latest is dated May 2, 2024.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 4.53 hours per resident per day, against 4.36 across Washington and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.87 of those hours.
35.4% 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 35 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure skilled rehab services were delivered in accordance with resident evaluations and treatment plans for 3 of 4 residents (8,91,119) reviewed for rehab and restorative services. This failure placed residents at risk for delay in recovery and/or discharge and decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure resident grievances were filed and addressed for 1 of 5 residents (Resident 29) reviewed for grievances. This failure to address and resolve resident grievances placed residents at risk for diminished dignity, unresolved missing property and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to accurately complete the Minimum Data Set, (MDS, an assessment tool that was used to develop the resident centered care plan) for 1 of 2 residents (Resident 2) reviewed for communication and 2 of 3 residents (Resident 22 and 86) reviewed for insulin (a hormone that body secretes to regulate the amount of sugar in the blood) use. Failure to accurately complete the MDS placed residents at risk for inappropriate medical care and decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 1 resident (Resident 11) reviewed for activities had an accurate assessment of recreational care needs and received an ongoing program of activities to meet the individual resident's physical and mental needs. Based on the reasonable person concept, not having adequate recreation and/or sensory stimulation placed the resident at risk for social isolation, lack of stimulation and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that 1 of 2 residents (Resident 24) reviewed for limited Range of Motion (ROM) received necessary care and services. The facility failed to ensure residents received appropriate services to prevent further decrease in range of motion and hand contracture (a permanent tightening of the muscles, tendons, skin and nearby tissues that causes the joints to shorten and become very stiff). 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 interview and record review the facility failed to ensure one of five staff reviewed, (Staff H) received timely annual performance evaluations. Failure to complete timely evaluations of nursing staff performance, conduct education and in-services based on those evaluations had the potential to result in decreased quality of resident care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate of less than 5%. Two medication errors were identified for 2 of 4 residents (Resident 97 and 39) observed during 25 medication opportunities which resulted in an error rate of 8%. Failure to provide medications on an empty stomach as ordered and failure to prime the needle prior to administration of insulin (synthetic hormone that allows sugar to enter cells and regulates the amount of sugar in the blood) placed residents at risk of decreased medication efficacy.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide 4 of 5 residents (Resident 28, 86, 35, 508) with a summary of their baseline care plan. This failure placed residents at risk of not being informed of their initial plan for delivery of care and services and placed them at risk for unmet needs and possible complications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to review and revise care plans for 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident 69) reviewed for activities of daily living (ADLs), 1 of 1 sampled residents (Resident 75) reviewed for discharge planning, 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident 9) reviewed for communication, 1 of 4 sampled residents (Resident 18) reviewed for dementia care, 1 of 1 sampled residents (Resident 40) reviewed for dental services, and 1 of 1 sampled residents (Resident 83) reviewed for urinary management. 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 accommodate resident preferences for 3 of 5 sampled residents (Resident 508, 35, and 92) regarding important daily routines and health care. The failure of the facility to honor resident choice placed residents at risk for a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to promptly report and document resident grievances for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident 35) reviewed for grievance resolution. The failure of staff to initiate resident grievances resulted in delays in grievance resolution and an extended period where a resident went without their missing property and placed residents at risk for frustration and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 1 resident (Resident 82) reviewed for blood sugar (BS) monitoring received BS checks per standards of practice/care. This failure exposed residents to an increased risk of inaccurate insulin administration and the potential for decreased blood sugar. Finding Included . A review of the facility policy, titled Timely Administration of Insulin, dated June 2020, stated that insulin administration will be coordinated with mealtimes and snacks. Resident 82 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include diabetes type 2 (a chronic disease that occurs when the sugar level in the blood stream was too high.) In an observation and interview on 12/19/2024 at 12:56 PM, Staff Q, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) assessed Resident 82's BS after they had eaten their lunch. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide respiratory care consistent with professional standards of practice for 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident 40) reviewed for respiratory care. Failure to follow provider's orders for oxygen (O2) therapy placed the resident at risk for unmet needs, potential negative outcomes and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure 2 of 2 sampled residents (Residents 1 and 2), who resided on a secured Special Care Unit (SCU), were free from sexual abuse. Resident 2 experienced pyshcosocial harm in the form of emotional distress, applying the reasonable person approach, when the facility failed to prevent sexual activity between two residents with cognitive deficits who were unable to consent to sexual relations. This failure placed all residents on the unit at risk of unwanted sexual contact, injury and psychological harm.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide necessary treatment and services to prevent the occurrence of avoidable Pressure Ulcer/Pressure Injury (PU/PI) for 1 of 4 sampled residents (Resident 32) who was admitted without a PU/PI and had multiple co-morbidities with an increased risk for PU/PI development. Resident 32 experienced harm when they developed a Stage 3 (defined as full thickness loss of tissue) PU/PI to the resident's coccyx (tailbone region). The facility did not document refusals to reposition, or recognize the need to evaluate/modify the interventions to prevent a PU/PI when Resident 32 was non-compliant with repositioning. Thes failures placed other residents at risk for developing PU/PI's, medical complications, and unmet care needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide a dignified and homelike dining experience in 2 of 3 (Southeast and South) dining rooms during 3 of 3 dining observations for dignity. These failures placed residents at risk for feelings of frustration, diminished self-worth, embarrassment, and a potential decline in nutritional status.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to obtain, provide, and/or assist with completing Advance Directives (AD's) for 5 of 12 sampled residents (Residents 160, 32, 75, 6 and 100) reviewed for AD's. This failure placed residents at risk for losing their right to have their healthcare preferences and/or decisions honored.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure 4 of 5 residents (Resident 86, 14, 83, and 73) were free of unnecessary drugs due to: 1) lack of specific target behavior monitoring, 2) not obtaining the monthly orthostatic vital signs, 3) not developing and implementing non-medical behavioral interventions, and 4) not having appropriate indication, documentation, and goals for use of psychotropic medications. These failures placed residents at risk for receiving unnecessary medications and for experiencing medication-related adverse side effects.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to monitor the medication refrigerator temperatures and ensure medications were stored in the medication room refrigerator under proper temperature controls in 2 of 3 (Central/South and Southeast) medication refrigerator observed. This failure placed residents at risk for receiving compromised or ineffective vaccines and medications with unknown potency.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents had access to their call lights for 2 of 3 sample residents (Resident 75 and 94), reviewed for quality of life. This failure placed residents at risk of unmet care needs and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement their abuse/neglect policy and procedure to thoroughly investigate injuries of unknown source for potential abuse/neglect for 2 of 4 residents (Resident 57 and 75) reviewed. Failure to thoroughly investigate injuries of unknown source placed residents at risk for continued abuse/neglect.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a written notice of transfer to the resident and/or the resident's representative describing the reason for transfer for 2 of 2 sampled residents (Residents 48 and 6) reviewed for transfer notifications regarding hospitalization. This failed practice disallowed the residents and/or their representative an opportunity to fully understand the rationale and resident rights associated with the discharges.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a bed hold notice in writing at the time of transfer to the hospital or within 24 hours of transfer to the hospital for 1 of 2 residents (Resident 48) reviewed for hospitalizations. This failed practice placed residents at risk for lack of knowledge regarding the right to hold their beds while they were at the hospital.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to complete an updated Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR - a screening tool used to determine if a person has an intellectual disability or has indicators for serious mental illness) for 1 of 5 residents (Resident 73) reviewed for PASRR accuracy who required a Level II evaluation (Level II evaluation - more in depth mental health evaluation than the screening PASRR) due to a new mental health diagnosis. This failed practice placed the resident at risk of not receiving specialized mental health services, for unidentified needs, and for a decrease in their quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement comprehensive, person-centered care plans to meet the needs of 2 of 4 residents (Resident 86 and 32) reviewed for care planning. This failure placed residents at risk for weight loss, inadequate tube feeding (a flexible tube placed into the stomach to help get nutrition when a person was unable to eat) management, unmanaged pain, not honoring resident's preferences, not receiving necessary care and services, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to review and revise care plans for 2 of 5 residents (Resident 53 and 57) reviewed for care planning. These failures placed the residents at risk for 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 oral hygiene was performed for 1 of 1 resident (Resident 33) 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 interview and record review the facility failed to thoroughly provide professional standards of care and services for 2 of 5 residents (Resident 28 and 73) reviewed for unnecessary medications and 1 of 1 resident (Resident 86) reviewed for medication management. The facility failed to obtain laboratory samples per physician orders, and to recognize low blood pressure (BP) results, reassess abnormal BP values, and notify the provider of abnormal findings. This failed practice placed residents at risk for medication complications, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure services were provided to maintain, increase, and/or prevent further decrease in range of motion for 1 of 1 resident (Resident 100) reviewed for limited range of motion. This failure placed the resident at risk for a decline in their functional ability and their quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure 3 of 3 (Resident 53, 33, and 67) residents reviewed for urinary catheters (flexible tubes inserted into the bladder to drain urine) received the necessary care and services to achieve their optimal level of urinary function. Failure to identify the reason for a resident's treatment with a urinary catheter, to maintain documentation to support why an indwelling catheter was replaced and a trial void order was not completed as ordered, there was a lack of documentation why the physician was not notified per their physician order when there was a low urinary output, and there was a failure to documentation the facility had counseled the resident/representative of the risks and benefits of a urinary catheter. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 1 resident (Resident 32) reviewed for respiratory care and services were provided care consistent with professional standards of practice. The facility failed to ensure the resident received oxygen as it was prescribed by the physician and failed to ensure oxygen (O2) administration tubing was appropriately maintained, changed regularly, and dated. This failure placed residents at risk for contaminated care equipment, not receiving physician ordered services, unmet care needs and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide an adequate rationale for not following pharmacist recommendations for 3 of 5 residents (Resident 86, 310, and 14) reviewed for unnecessary medications. This failure placed the residents at risk for experiencing the use of unnecessary medications and a potential diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure cognitively impaired residents were fed by assistants that were properly trained for 2 of 4 sampled staff (Staff W and Staff X) observed providing feeding assistance to residents (Resident 26 and 28). This failure placed residents at risk of choking and aspiration (inhalation of food or fluid into the lungs) and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 1 of 4 nutrition refrigerators/freezers (North Hall) reviewed for food storage. Failure to label foods with dates they were opened or discard dates, and discard expired food, placed residents at risk for food-borne illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to follow infection control standards during medication administration for 1 of 5 residents (Resident 116) observed for medication administration, and 1 of 1 residents (Resident 67) observed during care of a urinary catheter (a tube inserted into the bladder to drain urine.) This failure placed residents at risk for developing infections and for experiencing a decreased quality of life.
19 fire safety citations on file: 3 on March 20, 2026, 3 on December 20, 2024, 13 on October 31, 2023.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| May 2, 2024 | Fine | $51,500 |
| October 31, 2023 | Fine | $69,947 |
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) | 4.53 | 4.36 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.87 | 0.94 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.97 | 3.80 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.74 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.92 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 35.4% | 45.1% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 40.7% | 45.4% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 4.62 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 4.76 on weekdays and 3.97 on weekends, 17% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.4% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 4.05 in April to June 2025 to 4.53 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 | 4.53 | 0.87 | 4.76 | 3.97 | 0.4% | 0 of 90 | 116 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 4.17 | 0.77 | 4.36 | 3.69 | 0.2% | 0 of 92 | 115 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 4.10 | 0.97 | 4.32 | 3.56 | 2.0% | 0 of 92 | 116 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 4.05 | 0.91 | 4.28 | 3.50 | 1.2% | 0 of 91 | 113 |
| 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 | 20.4 | 14.2 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.3 | 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 | 2.9 | 2.6 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.5 | 1.3 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 10.5 | 17.2 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.9 | 4.3 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 12.1 | 15.1 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 19.1 | 19.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 8.2 | 13.4 | 12.0 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Bethany at Silver Lake's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (47.0% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
47.0% 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. 188 eligible stays.
9.1% 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. 186 eligible stays.
5.9% 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. 112 eligible stays.
46.1% 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. 91 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. 121 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. 121 residents counted.
100.0% 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. 84 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bethany of the Northwest | Direct ownership interest | Organization | 10/12/1999 | |
| Degroodt, Patricia | Corporate director | Individual | 02/01/2023 | |
| Dobler, Robert | Corporate director | Individual | 01/23/2025 | |
| Gay, Jeff | Corporate director | Individual | 04/24/2017 | |
| 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 | |
| Bauguess, Tristine | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/26/2025 | |
| Lagerstrom, Christine | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/25/2025 | |
| Scrivens, Joseph | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/06/2019 | |
| Toor, Navdeep | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 10/01/2022 | |
| Bethany of the Northwest | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/21/2025 | |
| Bauguess, Tristine | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 03/22/2017 | |
| Lagerstrom, Christine | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/25/2025 | |
| Scrivens, Joseph | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/06/2019 | |
| Toor, Navdeep | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 10/01/2022 |
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.