Home / Washington / Cheney
2219 North 6th Street, Cheney, WA 99004 · Spokane County · (509) 235-6196
54 certified beds, about 35 residents a day · Non profit - Other · Medicare and Medicaid since 1989
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 505346 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on August 20, 2025, inspectors cited 13 health deficiencies (the Washington average is 15.8, the national average 9.2).
Of 50 health citations since May 2023, 1 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $13,065 in the last three years; the largest was $13,065, and the latest is dated May 29, 2026.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 4.93 hours per resident per day, against 4.36 across Washington and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.64 of those hours.
38.8% 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 50 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents who were identified as being high risk for falls were provided adequate supervision and care plan interventions were developed/implemented and revised timely for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident 1) reviewed for falls. Resident 1, who had seven documented in-facility falls between 04/17/2026 and 05/17/2026, experienced harm when they fell, had severe pain to their left side of their head, and required emergency transfer to the hospital where they were diagnosed with a subdural hematoma (bleeding on the surface of the brain caused by a head injury).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure enhanced barrier precautions (EBP, use of personal protective equipment such as disposable gowns and gloves to prevent the spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria or other infectious organisms) was implemented when indicated for 3 of 4 sampled residents (Residents 19, 31, and 48) reviewed. Additionally, Infection Prevention policies were not reviewed annually as required. These findings placed residents and staff at risk of spreading or acquiring infectious bacteria, and at risk of continued use of outdated policies and procedures.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop procedures that ensured staff were educated on the risks, benefits and potential side effects of the COVID-19 (a virus that caused serious illness or even death) vaccine, that staff were offered information on obtaining the vaccine, and that the COVID-19 vaccination status of staff was maintained for 1 of 1 sampled staff (Staff H) reviewed. This failure placed staff and residents at risk of being uninformed of their vaccination choices, and at risk of becoming ill with COVID-19.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure 2 of 5 sampled residents (Resident 34 and 29), reviewed for unnecessary medications, were informed of the potential risks associated with the use of psychotropic medications (medications that can affect the mind, emotions, and behaviors) and that their consent was obtained prior to administering psychotropic medications. This failure placed the residents at risk of not being fully informed of the potential risks and benefits of taking the medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman received written notification of a hospital transfer and/or discharge, for 3 of 3 sampled residents (Residents 50, 7, and 2), reviewed for hospitalization/discharge. This failure placed the residents at risk of not having access to additional advocacy services from the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure 3 of 5 sampled residents (Residents 34, 4, and 2), reviewed for Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR, an assessment completed prior to admission into a skilled nursing facility to determine whether a resident with a diagnosis of a serious mental illness needed specialized mental health services) was completed prior to admission, accurately, and if indicated, a referral for a PASRR Level II (a more in-depth screening assessment) had been made. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure medication was administered per professional standards of practice for 1 of 8 sampled residents (Resident 31) reviewed during one medication administration observed. Specifically, a licensed nurse left medications at the resident's bedside without observing the medications being taken. This failure placed the residents at risk of not receiving the ordered medication and placed all residents at potential risk of medication errors.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to consistently provide bathing and personal hygiene/grooming for 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident 41) reviewed for activities of daily living (ADLS). Failure to provide bathing, shaving and nail care placed Resident 41 at risk for poor personal hygiene, diminished quality of life and unmet care needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to consistently follow care planned supervision interventions and fully evaluate the effectiveness of the fall prevention interventions in place for 1 of 3 sample residents (Resident 2) reviewed for accidents/hazards. This failure placed residents at risk for accidents and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure consistent communication with the dialysis center regarding fluid restrictions occurred for 1 of 1 sample residents (Resident 19) reviewed. This failure placed the resident at risk of fluid weight gain, fluid overload and unintended health consequences.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered as ordered for 1 of 1 sample residents (Resident 19) reviewed for dialysis care. Specifically, alternative arrangements were not made with the provider causing Resident 19 to have doses of their medications omitted on the mornings of their dialysis sessions. This failure placed the resident at risk for unintended health consequences and decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to consistently monitor the medication refrigerator temperatures for 1 of 1 medication storage rooms to ensure they were at safe storage levels. This failure placed residents at risk for receiving compromised or ineffective medication.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to serve food that was palatable and had an appetizing appearance, and temperature for 2 of 2 meals observed and 1 of 1 test tray sampled. This failure resulted in the potential for all residents to have decreased appetite and decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to label and date food products in 2 of 2 resident snack refrigerators. This failure placed the residents at risk for food borne illness and decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to assess, monitor, and notify the physician of a non-pressure related skin condition for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident 1), reviewed for skin integrity. This failure placed the residents at risk for potential worsening skin conditions and a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff followed Contact Precautions, when indicated, for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident 1), during wound care. This failure placed the residents at risk for spread of infection, illnesses, and unintended health consequences.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a bed-hold notice (a notice to inform residents of their right to pay the facility to hold their room/bed while they were hospitalized ), to the resident and/or their representative at the time of discharge, or within 24 hours of transfer to the hospital, for 4 of 4 sampled residents (Resident 1, 3, 6, and 7), reviewed for hospitalization. This failure placed residents at risk for a lack of knowledge regarding the right to a bed-hold while they were hospitalized .
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR, a screening required to be completed prior to admission to a nursing home that looked for indicators that one may have a serious mental illness) were completed for 3 of 5 sampled residents (Resident 1, 3, and 7), reviewed for PASARR's. Resident 1 and 3 were not referred for a Level II evaluation (an assessment that made recommendations about specialized services needed to determine the best setting to meet a person's behavioral health needs) and Resident 7 did not have a PASARR completed prior to admission to the facility, as required. This failure placed the residents at risk for a decline in their mental health and a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to consider re-admission for 1 of 4 sampled residents (Resident 3), reviewed for hospitalization. This failure placed the resident at risk for increased anxiety related to being placed in an unfamiliar environment, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure behavioral health needs were identified and met for 2 of 4 sample residents (Resident 1 and 3), reviewed for behavioral-emotional health. Failure to assess residents behavioral needs, identify individual resident responses to stressors and develop person-centered interventions placed residents at risk for unidentified behavior triggers, unmet behavioral needs, and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased upon observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure adequate disposition of personal belongings upon admission, throughout their stay at the facility, and at the time of discharge, for 6 of 6 sampled residents (Residents 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6) reviewed for missing items. This failure placed the residents at risk for loss of personal belongings and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement their Abuse and Neglect Prohibition Policies and Procedures to include, not reporting or investigating an elopement and resident-to-resident altercation for 1 of 6 sampled residents (Resident 1) reviewed for accident hazards. This failure placed the resident and other residents at risk for repeated abuse and elopement and precluded the state agency (SA) from being aware of and investigating the circumstances surrounding the resident's elopement and resident-to-resident altercation.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide and document sufficient preparation or orientation for a safe discharge for 1 of 4 sampled residents (Resident 1) reviewed for discharge planning. This failure placed the resident 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 staff implemented recommendations to help prevent kidney stones for 1 of 6 sampled residents (Resident 1) reviewed for urinary tract infections (UTI). This failure placed the resident at risk for repeated kidney stone development and associated discomfort. Review of the medical record showed Resident 1 re-admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of the diagnoses list showed but was not limited to, dementia, a history of UTI, kidney stones, and chronic kidney disease. Review of a 04/10/2024 Urology (branch of medicine that focuses on surgical and medical diseases of the urinary system and the reproductive organs) Visit Summary showed Resident 1 was seen for kidney stones. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the staff provided and monitored the required amount of fluids to ensure adequate hydration for 1 of 6 sampled residents (Resident 1) reviewed for hydration. This failure placed the resident at risk for outcomes associated with insufficient fluid intake, like dehydration and urinary tract infections (UTI).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that 2 residents (3, 11) had current and complete oxygen orders and failed to ensure that oxygen equipment was maintained in a clean manner for 5 of 5 residents (3, 11, 14, 17, 28) reviewed for respiratory care. These failures placed the residents at risk for respiratory complications and infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure meals were served to residents at an appropriate and appetizing temperature. This failed practice resulted in the potential risk for decreased quality of life for all residents. Findings inculded . According to the Washington State Food Handlers Guide Website, The Washington State Department of Health, Safety and Licensing Division recommends that all potentially hazardous foods be held at a temperature of 41°F or below in commercial refrigerators and freezers. This includes meats, fish, poultry, eggs, dairy products, cooked vegetables, cooked rice and pasta, cut melons, and other perishable items. All frozen foods should be stored at 0°F or below. Hot food items should be held at a temperature of 140°F or above. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 5 sampled residents (25), reviewed for unnecessary medications, were informed of the potential risks and benefits associated with the use of psychotropic medications (medications that can affect the mind, emotions, and behaviors). Failure to obtain the informed consents resulted in the resident and/or representative not being informed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide a clean, comfortable, homelike environment for 1 of 2 sampled resident (25), reviewed for environment. This failure placed Resident 25 at risk for possible illness from unclean equipment, a lack of dignity, and a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to complete a discharge summary, including a recapitulation of the resident's stay as required, for 1 of 1 sampled residents (40), reviewed for discharge. This failure placed the resident at risk for having an incomplete medical record.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to implement bowel management protocol when indicated for 3 of 7 sampled residents (2,18,193), reviewed for constipation. These failures placed residents at risk for complications, worsening conditions, and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interview, and record review the facility failed to document a detailed nutritional assessment at time of admission, for a resident identified as being at risk for compromised nutritional status. This failure resulted in potential impaired nutrition, and an increased risk of: mortality, impairment of anticipated wound healing, decline in function, fluid and electrolyte imbalance/dehydration, and unplanned weight change.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to accurately reconcile all controlled medications in 1 of 2 medication carts (Cart 1), reviewed for medication storage. This failure placed residents at risk for misappropriation of their controlled medications and placed the facility at increased risk for controlled substance drug diversion.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure recommendations from the pharmacist were addressed, for 1 of 5 sample residents (25), reviewed for unnecessary medications. These failures placed residents at risk for receiving medications at inappropriate times and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure dietary staff had the required qualifications (current Food Worker Cards) for 2 dietary staff (W, X). This failed practice had the potential risk for unsafe food handling practices and placed all residents at risk for developing foodborne illness. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure there were enough staff in the dining room during meals to assist residents timely. This failure had the potential risk for residents being served food at unappetizing temperatures, decreased appetite and decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure food in the snack/nourishment refrigerators was labelled and dated, expired foods were removed, and the snack/nourishment refrigerators were monitored routinely for proper temperature. This failure resulted in a potential risk of food borne illness for all residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff performed hand hygiene and wore gloves during the meal service when indicated, maintained a resident's nails in a sanitary manner prior to and after meals, and not cleansing a resident's skin prior to an injection. These failures placed the residents at risk for infection, transmission of communicable diseases and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to timely evaluate and initiate treatment for 1 of 2 residents (Resident 1), reviewed for accidents. This failure placed the resident at risk for unmet care needs related to transfers, increased pain, and worsening condition.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the failed to provide mandatory behavioral health training to 7 of 7 staff (Staff F, H, I, R, S, T and U), reviewed for staff training and competency. This deficient practice placed all residents with behavioral health diagnoses at risk for unmet care needs and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement their bowel protocol timely and accurately for 7 of 23 sampled residents (Residents 32, 28, 25, 39, 2, 145, and 20), reviewed for bowel maintenance and quality of care. This deficient practice placed the residents at risk for complications related to unmanaged constipation such as discomfort, nausea, vomiting, bowel obstruction (blockage) and an overall diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure appropriate infection control practices were maintained for hand hygiene during an observed medication pass and dining; failed to ensure sanitary handling of a lancet (a sharp-pointed two edged instrument used to prick the skin) to check a blood sugar; failed to maintain oxygen tubing in a sanitary manner; and failed to ensure a resident reviewed for use and care of a urinary 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. These failures placed residents at risk of infection and illnesses.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of five sampled residents (Resident 2), reviewed for medication management, was fully informed of the potential risks associated with use of psychotropic medications (medications which alter thought processes). This failure placed the resident at risk to make decisions about medications while lacking relevant information, related to serious side effects.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide notification to the resident's representative of a change in condition for one of twenty sampled residents (Resident 24), reviewed for notification of change. This failure prevented the resident's representative from being informed of a skin condition, behaviors, refusal of medication, and participating in care decisions.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to timely and thoroughly investigate 2 incidents involving 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident 19), reviewed for abuse/neglect. This deficient practice disallowed an opportunity for an evaluation of facility practices, to determine if appropriate care and services were being provided, and placed residents at risk for unidentified and ongoing abuse/neglect.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to complete an updated Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) for one of five sampled residents (Resident 28), reviewed for PASARR accuracy, who required a Level II evaluation due to a new mental health diagnoses. This deficient practice placed the resident at risk of not receiving specialized mental health services, unidentified needs, and a decrease in quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) [an assessment used to identify people referred to nursing facilities with mental illness, intellectual disabilities, or related conditions], and a Level II assessment [a more in-depth screening, to identify whether nursing home services were needed and if specialized mental health services were required] was completed for 1 of 5 sampled residents (Resident 2), reviewed for PASARR services. This failure placed the resident at risk for inappropriate placement, and/or not receiving timely and necessary services to meet mental health care needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to complete a discharge summary, including a recapitulation of the resident's stay as required, for one of one sampled residents (Resident 44), reviewed for discharge. This failure placed the resident at risk for having an incomplete medical record.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to monitor for the effectiveness of a sleep aid for one of five sampled residents (32), reviewed for unnecessary medications. This deficient practice placed the resident at risk of experiencing adverse side effects, and for receiving ineffective and/or unnecessary medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure expired medications were disposed of timely, in accordance with currently accepted professional standards, in 1 medication storage room and 1 of 3 nursing carts (cart 2). This failure placed residents at risk for receiving compromised or ineffective medication.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide documented evidence of the required 12-hours of in-service training for 2 of 3 nursing assistants (Staff G and H), reviewed for staff competency. This deficient practice placed the residents at risk of being cared for by inadequately trained staff, and a decreased quality of life.
27 fire safety citations on file: 13 on June 5, 2024, 11 on May 11, 2023, 3 on January 30, 2020.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| May 29, 2026 | Fine | $13,065 |
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) | 4.93 | 4.36 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.64 | 0.94 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 4.43 | 3.80 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 3.24 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.05 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 38.8% | 45.1% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 42.9% | 45.4% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 4.57 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 5.13 on weekdays and 4.43 on weekends, 14% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.6% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 4.35 in April to June 2025 to 4.93 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 | 4.93 | 0.64 | 5.13 | 4.43 | 0.6% | 0 of 90 | 35 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 4.71 | 0.52 | 4.90 | 4.23 | 0.0% | 1 of 92 | 37 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 4.32 | 0.58 | 4.51 | 3.84 | 0.0% | 1 of 92 | 41 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 4.35 | 0.50 | 4.52 | 3.93 | 0.1% | 3 of 91 | 42 |
| 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 | 22.9 | 14.2 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.5 | 1.0 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.8 | 1.6 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 7.4 | 2.6 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 1.3 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 15.5 | 17.2 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.4 | 4.3 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 13.8 | 15.1 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 16.1 | 19.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 18.1 | 13.4 | 12.0 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Cheney Care Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (52.6% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
52.6% 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. 89 eligible stays.
8.6% 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. 89 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. 44 eligible stays.
40.0% 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. 50 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. 61 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. 61 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. 31 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: CHENEY CARE COMMUNITY.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cheney Care Community | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 04/22/1976 |
| Geschke, Gary | Direct ownership interest | Individual | 10/01/1979 | |
| Julsen, Vanessa | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 07/01/2016 | |
| Geschke, Gary | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 10/01/1979 | |
| Gannon, John | Corporate director | Individual | 02/03/2025 | |
| Cheney Care Community | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 04/27/1976 | |
| Gannon, John | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/03/2025 | |
| Julsen, Vanessa | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 07/01/2016 | |
| Gannon, John | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/03/2025 | |
| Julsen, Vanessa | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 07/01/2016 |
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.