Home / Washington / Renton
17420 106th Pl Se, Renton, WA 98055 · King County · (425) 362-6200
60 certified beds, about 55 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 2019
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 505532 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on April 21, 2025, inspectors cited 12 health deficiencies (the Washington average is 15.8, the national average 9.2).
Of 31 health citations since February 2023, 2 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $74,815 in the last three years; the largest was $74,815, and the latest is dated August 13, 2024.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 5.18 hours per resident per day, against 4.36 across Washington and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 1.13 of those hours.
39.3% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Washington average 45.1%).
CMS links it to PACS Group, an affiliated group of 275 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 31 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure physician's orders were followed, failed to ensure medications were available from the pharmacy and failed to notify the provider of not giving medications as ordered for 1 of 5 residents (Resident 1) whose medication regimens were reviewed. The failure to ensure orders were followed and medications were made available, placed residents for unnecessary pain, and other negative health outcomes.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure specialized rehabilitative services were provided as determined by the physician's order and the residents' plan of care for 2 of 3 residents (Residents 1 & 2) reviewed for Occupational Therapy (OT) services. This failure placed residents at risk of not attaining, maintaining, or restoring their highest practicable level of physical, mental, functional, and psychosocial well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain a Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) committee that included the required participants. This failure put residents at risk for unmet care needs due to ongoing non-compliance with federal regulations and detracted from the interdisciplinary effectiveness of the team.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure residents' medical information was maintained in a manner to ensure privacy and confidentiality when staff failed to properly secure medical records for 3 of 16 sampled residents (Resident 59, 7, & 50) reviewed for privacy and confidentiality and 7 supplemental residents (Residents 30, 66, 264, 9, 38, 56, & 55). The failure to ensure residents' medical appointment and weight information were stored in a secure manner placed residents at risk for a loss of privacy and a diminished quality of life. <Findings> <Facility Policy> Record review of the facility's December 2016 Resident Rights policy showed facility staff were prohibited from disclosing Protected Health Information (PHI - any information that could be used to identify someone and their health care status). [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide care and services in a manner that maintained and promoted dignity for 1 of 16 sample residents reviewed (Resident 214). This failure placed residents at risk for a diminished sense self-worth and overall well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a system by which residents received required written notices at the time of transfer/discharge, or as soon as practicable for 3 (Residents 63, 23, & 29) of 4 residents reviewed for hospitalizations. Failure to ensure written notification was provided to the resident and/or the resident's representative, in a language and manner they understood, placed residents at risk for not having an opportunity to make informed decisions about transfers/discharges. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure a system by which the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman (LTCO, an advocacy group for individuals residing in nursing homes) received required resident discharge/transfer information for 3 (Residents 63, 23, & 29) of 4 residents reviewed for hospitalization. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR - a mental health screening required prior to admission to a nursing home) assessments were completed as required for 2 of 5 residents (Resident 45 & 50) reviewed for PASRR screening. The failure to ensure PASRR screenings were complete and accurate left residents at risk for inappropriate placement and/or not receiving timely and necessary services to meet their mental health care needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility to ensure comprehensive Care Plans (CPs) were developed to address all identified resident care needs for 4 (Residents 58, 214, 14, & 45) of 16 residents whose CPs were reviewed. This failure placed residents at risk for unmet care needs and frustration.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure physician's orders were followed for 1 of 5 (Resident 45) residents whose medication regimens were reviewed. The failure to ensure orders were followed placed residents for unneeded treatment, and other negative health outcomes
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADLs - daily hygiene and other self-care tasks) for 2 (Residents 13 & 7) of 6 sample residents reviewed for ADLs. The failure to provide ADL assistance residents were assessed to require placed residents at risk for poor hygiene, diminished feelings of self-worth, and other negative health outcomes.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure fall interventions were removed timely when assessed to be unbeneficial for 1 of 3 residents (Resident 50) reviewed for accident hazards and failed to ensure resident mattresses fit the bedframe for 1 of 5 residents (Resident 31) reviewed for positioning. These failures placed residents at risk for falls, injury, and discomfort.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 4 residents (Resident 27), reviewed for nutrition, received timely evaluation of weights, and implementation of effective interventions, to maintain adequate nutrition. This failure placed the residents at risk for ongoing weight loss and poor nutrition and potential harm.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview the facility failed to ensure residents were provided the artificial nutrition they were assessed to require for 1 of 1 residents (Resident 114) reviewed for tube feeding. The failure to ensure the full volume of artificial nutrition ordered was provided daily placed Resident 114 at risk for weight loss and other negative health outcomes.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure medically-related social services were provided for 1 of 4 residents (Residents 29) reviewed for nutrition. The failure to involve facility social workers for residents demonstrating behaviors of rejection of care placed residents at risk for unmet health needs and other negative health outcomes.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure staff performed Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR- an emergency procedure consisting of chest compressions combined with giving breaths of air when the resident's heart stops and they stop breathing) to 1 of 3 residents (Resident 1) reviewed for unexpected death in the facility. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to treat residents with dignity and respect and provide a dignified existence that promoted quality of life for 1 of 1 resident (Resident 2) reviewed for resident rights. The failure to have a process for staff to provide a comfortable environment for residents after the death of a roommate, placed residents at risk of feeling scared, unsafe, distressed, and have a diminished quality of life. Resident 2 was harmed, using the reasonable person concept, when their roommate (Resident 1) died and they were left in the same room with the deceased resident from 10:00 PM on [DATE] until 5:30 PM on [DATE], 19.5 hours. Resident 2 was placed in a situation to cause harm to their mental well-being, safety, and dignity when they were not separated from their dead roommate's body.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure nursing staff and nursing aide staff had the appropriate competencies and skill sets to provide nursing and related services to assure resident safety and attain or maintain the highest practicable physician, mental and psychosocial well-being of each resident according to the facility assessment, resident-specific assessments and resident plans of care for 11 of 11 staff (Staff K, L, E, M, H - Certified Nursing Assistants and Staff C, N, G, D, O, P - Licensed Nurses) reviewed for competency. The failure to develop and implement a process to evaluate staff's competency and skills to perform job expectations placed residents at risk for accidents, injuries, infections, diminished quality of life, and diminished quality of care.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure violations of alleged neglect, involving serious bodily injury, were reported immediately to the state survey agency in accordance with State law for 1 of 3 residents (Resident 1) who did not receive CPR when there was a Physician Order (PO) directing staff to perform Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR- an emergency procedure consisting of chest compressions combined with giving breaths of air when the resident's heart stops and they stop breathing). The facility's failure to identify and report alleged neglect after a catastrophic change in condition, that involved the death of Resident 1, placed 39 of 48 other residents who had POs to receive CPR, at serious risk of harm including death.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to timely initiate, document, and complete a thorough investigation involving an incident of serious bodily injury for 1 of 3 residents (Resident 1) reviewed for investigations of abuse and neglect. There was no investigation completed to rule out abuse or neglect or to determine the need for system interventions. The failure to investigate the system failure related to the lack of implementing the facility CPR policy placed 39 of 48 other residents at serious risk of harm, including death.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure 1 of 3 residents (Resident 3) received care, consistent with professional standards of practice, to prevent Pressure Ulcers/Pressure Injuries (PU/PI, localized damage to the skin and underlying tissue from prolonged pressure, friction, or shear, causing pain). The failure to identify individual risk factors related to diagnoses, implement resident-specific interventions and ensure prevention of PU/PIs placed residents at risk for harm related to serious injury, development of pressure ulcers, medical complications, and diminished quality of life. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR - a process to determine if a potential nursing home resident had mental health/intellectual disability needs which required further assessment/treatment) assessment was accurate to reflect the residents' mental health conditions for 3 of 5 (Resident 16, 111, & 35) residents reviewed for PASRR. This failure placed residents at risk for inappropriate nursing home placement and/or not receiving timely and necessary services to meet their mental health needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to have sufficient nurse staff to provide and supervise care of residents as evidenced by information provided in a Resident/Surveyor interview, for 4 residents (Residents 35, 37, 46, & 4) interviewed for call light response time. This failure to ensure staff answered residents call lights in a timely manner placed residents at risk for unmet care needs and accidents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure resident's records were complete, accurate, and readily accessible for 6 (Residents 7, 11, 31, 5, 25, & 35) of 17 residents whose records were reviewed. The failure to ensure resident records were complete and up to date to reflect the current resident conditions and care provided placed residents at risk for inaccurate assessments, poor coordination of care and unmet needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure residents had the appropriate Advance Directive (AD) in place for 3 of 5 residents (Residents 33, 35, & 50) reviewed for ADs. The facility failed to obtain a copy from residents (Resident 33, 35, & 50) with an existing AD and make the documentation readily available in the medical records and accessible to facility staff. These failures placed residents at risk of losing their right to have their stated preferences/decisions honored regarding medical treatment and end-of-life care.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a Significant Change in Status Assessment (SCSA), including Care Area Assessments, were completed within 14 days for 1 of 1 resident (Resident 31) reviewed for a recent hospitalization, decline in nutritional intake, and a change in skin integrity. Failure to identify Resident 31's change in status and to complete a SCSA placed the resident at risk for unidentified and/or unmet care needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to complete and/or transmit the required Minimum Data Set (MDS - an assessment tool) data to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) within the required time frames for 4 of 7 sampled residents with discharges (Residents 34, 65, 63 & 64) reviewed for resident assessments.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure 3 (Residents 31, 11, & 35) of 17 residents Minimum Data Set (MDS - an assessment tool) were completed accurately to reflect the resident's condition. This failure placed residents at risk for unidentified and/or unmet needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure Physician's Orders (POs): were obtained prior to administration of medications for 1 (Resident 110) of 3 sample residents; were clarified for 1 (Resident 111) of 14 sample residents; were not administered outside of parameters for 2 (Resident 31 & 7) of 14 sample residents reviewed. These failures placed residents at risk for medication errors, delayed treatment, and adverse outcomes.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure services provided met professional standards of practice for 4 of 12 (Residents 17, 20, 23, & 39) residents reviewed. Nursing staff failed to follow or clarify physician's orders when indicated and failed to complete an oral assessment and identify safety risks of loose teeth/dentures. These failures placed residents at risk for treatment errors, delayed treatment, omission of treatments, and adverse outcomes.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure 2 of 3 residents (Residents 5 & 23) reviewed for Pressure Ulcers (PUs) received the necessary treatment and services consistent with professional standards of practice. The failure to initiate appropriate and timely interventions left residents at risk for unidentified wound decline, discomfort, and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure restorative services were consistently provided for 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident 20) reviewed for range of motion (ROM) treatment and services. This failure placed residents at risk of further decline in ROM, loss of function, and/or permanent immobility.
27 fire safety citations on file: 13 on April 21, 2025, 3 on March 22, 2024, 11 on February 24, 2023.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| August 13, 2024 | Fine | $74,815 |
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) | 5.18 | 4.36 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 1.13 | 0.94 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 4.30 | 3.80 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.86 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.18 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 39.3% | 45.1% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 38.5% | 45.4% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 4.10 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 5.53 on weekdays and 4.30 on weekends, 22% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.1% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 5.18 in April to June 2025 to 5.18 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 | 5.18 | 1.13 | 5.53 | 4.30 | 0.1% | 0 of 90 | 55 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 4.96 | 1.08 | 5.31 | 4.07 | 0.3% | 0 of 92 | 55 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 5.28 | 0.91 | 5.59 | 4.51 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 45 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 5.18 | 0.93 | 5.52 | 4.34 | 0.3% | 0 of 91 | 47 |
| 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 | 14.3 | 14.2 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.4 | 1.0 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.3 | 1.6 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 2.6 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.1 | 1.3 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.0 | 4.3 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 17.2 | 15.1 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 21.8 | 19.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 8.7 | 13.4 | 12.0 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Cedar River Healthcare Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it better than the national rate (70.2% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
70.2% 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. 403 eligible stays.
10.1% 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. 390 eligible stays.
6.6% 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. 269 eligible stays.
51.9% 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. 212 residents counted.
1.5% 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. 271 residents counted.
1.4% 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. 271 residents counted.
99.0% 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. 203 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: RENTON SNF HEALTHCARE LLC. CMS links this home to PACS Group, a group of 275 nursing homes averaging 2.9 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Branch Banking & Trust Company | 5% or greater security interest | Organization | 01/10/2025 | |
| Truist Bank | 5% or greater security interest | Organization | 01/10/2025 | |
| Brucell, Zoee | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 04/07/2025 | |
| James, Beth | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 01/10/2025 | |
| Malone, Tyrone | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 01/10/2025 | |
| Mercado, Neriza | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 01/10/2025 | |
| Rosal, Patrick | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 01/10/2025 | |
| Sichel, Terra | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 01/10/2025 | |
| Apt, Frederick | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/10/2025 | |
| Jergensen, Joshua | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/10/2025 | |
| Mitchell, John | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/10/2025 | |
| Brucell, Zoee | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/07/2025 | |
| Mercado, Neriza | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/10/2025 | |
| Providence Administrative Consulting Services Inc | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/22/2025 | |
| Brucell, Zoee | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/10/2025 | |
| Mercado, Neriza | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/10/2025 |
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.