Home / Washington / Colfax
1150 West Fairview Road, Colfax, WA 99111 · Whitman County · (509) 397-4603
55 certified beds, about 44 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1977
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 505251 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on June 14, 2025, inspectors cited 22 health deficiencies (the Washington average is 15.8, the national average 9.2).
Of 64 health citations since March 2023, 4 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 3 fines totaling $76,831 in the last three years; the largest was $39,867, and the latest is dated April 7, 2026.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.67 hours per resident per day, against 4.36 across Washington and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 1.01 of those hours.
71.4% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Washington average 45.1%).
CMS links it to Cascadia Healthcare, an affiliated group of 47 nursing homes.
Federal rules call for a standard inspection at least every 15 months, plus a visit whenever a complaint is filed. Each mark below is one citation, colored by how serious inspectors rated it. How to read a citation.
Under each citation, the quoted text is the inspector's own summary from the federal statement of deficiencies (CMS form 2567), word for word apart from a privacy scrub; CMS removes residents' and staff names before it publishes the text. The full notes are on Medicare.gov.
CMS rates every citation by how much harm it caused (rows) and how many residents it touched (columns). The count in each box is this home's, across all 64 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to timely identify and address a decline in condition for 1 of 3 residents (Resident 1) started on a new medication. Resident 1 experienced harm when they had a decline in condition as evidenced by nausea/vomiting, change of level of consciousness, were difficult to arouse, and became unresponsive after starting a new partial opioid (buprenorphine-naloxone (suboxone) - a central nervous system depressant used to treat opioid addiction) medication.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 3 residents (Resident 1), received medications as ordered and were free from significant medications errors. This failure placed residents at risk for adverse medication side effects, and worsening condition.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to consistently provide wound care treatment and address refusal of care for 1 of 7 residents (Resident 4), failed to obtain wound supplies timely for 2 of 7 residents (Resident 5 and 6), and failed to enter orders for wound care for 2 of 7 residents (Resident 3 and 7) reviewed for non-pressure skin conditions. This failure placed residents at risk for worsening skin conditions.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement measures to prevent skin breakdown for 1 of 7 residents (Resident 1), failed to address resident refusal of care and consistently provide wound care for worsening pressure ulcers for 1 of 7 residents (Resident 2), and failed to enter wound care orders timely and collect ordered wound cultures timely for 1 of 7 residents (Resident 3) reviewed for pressure ulcers. Failure to implement interventions timely resulted in the development of potentially avoidable pressure ulcers, failure to address refusal of care and provide consistent wound care resulted in worsening pressure ulcers and failure to enter wound care orders timely and collect wound cultures, as ordered, resulted in delayed care of pressure ulcers.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility repeatedly failed to ensure the facility had enough staff to answer resident call lights and attend to resident needs in a timely manner for 7 of 8 sampled residents (Resident 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7), reviewed for sufficient staffing. This failure placed all residents at risk for potentially avoidable accidents, unmet care needs, and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to repeatedly ensure the facility had enough staff to provide care according to the facility acuity (the level of severity of residents' illnesses, physical, mental, and cognitive limitations, and conditions) and/or care plans for 7 of 10 sampled residents (Resident 98, 195, 14, 20, 28, 10, and 2 ), reviewed for sufficient staffing. This failure placed all residents at risk for potentially avoidable accidents, unmet care needs, and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure opened dates were placed on food items in the refrigerator and freezer, expired foods were discarded in 2 of 3 refrigerators and in 1 of 1 dry storage areas, and ensure refrigerator temperatures were monitored. In addition, the facility further failed to maintain a clean cooking environment. These failures placed residents at risk for food-borne illnesses.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview the facility failed to maintain a resident call light system that was functionable and audible, as required. This failure placed all facility residents at risk of potentially avoidable accidents, unmet care needs, and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility repeatedly failed to ensure resident hospital transfer documentation was completed as required to include the basis for hospital transfer, specific resident needs unable to be met by the facility, facility attempts to meet the needs, services available at the receiving facility to meet needs, what information was conveyed to the receiving provider, bed hold offered upon transfer, and notification to the Office of the State Long-Term Care (LTC) Ombudsman (an advocate for residents of nursing homes who protected and promoted resident rights under federal and state law and regulations) of discharges and/or transfers, as required for 3 of 4 sampled residents (Resident 28, 195, and 44), reviewed for hospitalization . [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure Preadmission Screening and Resident Reviews (PASRR, a two-part screening; Level I determined presence of a Severe Mental Illness [SMI] or Developmental Disability. If present, a Level II evaluation by a specialized evaluator determined if nursing home placement was the appropriate level of care, and if behavioral health or other community services were recommended. A Level II was required to be completed prior to nursing home admission) were completed correctly, PASSR Level II were referred for evaluation when indicated, and Level II evaluation recommendations were incorporated into the plan of care, as required for 4 of 6 sample residents (Resident 18, 28, 6, and 30), reviewed for PASRR. This failure placed residents at risk of behavioral health needs not being met and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide care-planned restorative interventions and do periodic evaluations of current programs for 2 of 3 sampled residents (Residents 14 and 23), reviewed for restorative services (interventions developed to promote the resident's ability to achieve and maintain optimal physical, mental, and psychosocial functioning). The facility further failed to assess the need for restorative services for a resident (Resident 2). This failure placed the residents at risk for a decline in mobility and a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a system to evaluate staff competencies in skills and techniques to ensure staff provided necessary care and responded to each resident's individualized needs for 3 of 11 sampled staff (Staff EE, U, and FF), reviewed for nursing services. This failure placed residents at risk of receiving care from inadequately trained and/or under-qualified care staff, unmet care needs, and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to routinely complete annual staff performance reviews yearly as required and provide education based on the outcome of these reviews for 3 of 5 sampled nursing assistants (Staff I, L, and N), reviewed for performance reviews. This failure placed residents at risk of receiving care from inadequately trained and/or under-qualified care staff, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interviews, the facility failed to maintain an appropriate temperature in 1 of 1 medication storage rooms, ensure expired medications were removed from inventory and insulin vials were dated when opened for 1 of 2 medication carts, observed for medication storage. In addition, bottles of a liquid oral narcotic were not monitored for loss or diversion as required. This failure placed residents at risk of receiving less than the optimum dose of their medications, placed the facility at increased risk for potential controlled substance drug diversion and detracted from the facility's ability to promptly identify drug diversion.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure bedtime snacks were offered to 6 of 6 sampled residents (Resident 18, 26, 7, 11, 20 and 1), interviewed during Resident Council. This failure placed residents at risk for hunger and potential weight loss due to the gap between meals.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure resident records were complete, accurate, readily accessible, and systematically organized for 3 of 4 sampled residents (Resident 28, 42, and 195), reviewed for transfer and discharge. This failure placed residents at risk of having an incomplete medical record, unmet care needs, and diminished quality of life.
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 when providing high contact types of care for residents with drains, tubes, or colonized with antibiotic resistant bacteria) were implemented when indicated for 4 of 5 sampled residents (Residents 14, 195, 96, and 11) reveiwed, and that hand hygiene and EBP were implemented during 2 of 2 medication administration observations and 1 of 1 wound treatment observations. These failures created risk that antibiotic resistant bacteria were spread from resident to resident, and created potential risk of illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to repeatedly ensure nursing assistants received a minimum of 12 hours of in-service training per year, as required to include dementia management, abuse prevention, and caring for individuals with cognitive impairment for 2 of 5 sampled staff (Staff I and L), reviewed for nursing services. This failure placed residents at risk of receiving care from inadequately trained and/or under-qualified care staff, unmet care needs, and diminished quality of life. <Staff I> Review of Staff I's, Nursing Assistant (NA), personnel file showed they were hired on 07/16/2021. Review of Staff I's training records showed no documentation they received a minimum of 12 hours of in-service training per year as required to include dementia management, abuse prevention, and caring for individuals with cognitive impairment. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to honor residents' choices regarding having the hoyer sling (a sling used for a full body mechanical lift transfer) left under them after being transferred into their wheelchairs, for 2 of 4 sampled residents (Residents 10 and 20), reviewed for choices. This failure placed residents at risk for not receiving resident specific care, not having their preferences honored, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to inform and provide written information regarding the right to formulate an advance directive (legal document that outlined wishes for medical care if a person was unable to make decisions for themselves) for 1 of 4 sampled residents (Resident 195), reviewed for advanced directives. This failure placed residents at risk of not being able to exercise their rights, not having their wishes honored, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents requiring assistance with their activities of daily living (ADLs), were provided timely assistance according to their needs and preferences for 2 of 2 sampled residents (Residents 10 and 23), reviewed for ADLs. Specifically, Resident 10 was not provided bathing per their preference and Resident 23 was not provided nail care when indicated. This failure put residents at risk for a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to implement wound care orders for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident 195), reviewed for non-pressure related skin conditions. This failure placed residents at risk for wound complications, unidentified skin infections, and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure behavioral health care services were provided for 2 of 3 sampled residents (Residents 28 and 18), reviewed for mood and behavior. Resident 28 was not referred for behavioral health support until after they voiced wanting to die, used a dinner knife to inflict injury to their left hand and made stabbing motions to their abdomen which required transport to the hospital, and additionally requested death with dignity (allowing terminally ill individuals to choose when and how they die, often with medical assistance). This failure placed residents at risk of experiencing further decline in their mental well-being, unmet care needs, and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to timely act upon the pharmacy's monthly drug regimen reviews and/or pharmacist recommendations for identified irregularities for 2 of 5 sampled residents (Residents 6 and 11), reviewed for unnecessary medications. This failure placed residents at risk of inadequately monitored medications, potentially unidentified adverse consequences, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were given their medications as ordered for 2 of 5 sampled residents (Residents 11 and 20) reviewed for medication management. This failure placed residents at risk of exacerbations of their chronic health conditions, and unintended consequences when doses of their medications were omitted.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure documentation that facility staff were provided education regarding risks and benefits associated with the COVID-19 (a highly contagious viral illness that caused potential severe illness including possible death) vaccine, that staff were offered the vaccine, and that the COVID-19 vaccine status of staff was maintained for 2 of 2 sampled staff (Staff F and Q) reviewed. This failure placed staff at risk of not receiving vaccination against COVID-19 if desired, or information to determine the vaccine risks and benefits.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide a safe, sanitary, comfortable homelike environment for 3 of 5 sampled residents (Resident 6, 10 and 23 ), reviewed for environment. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure hazardous chemicals were securely stored in 1 housekeeping closet and 1 shower room accessible to Resident 6. In addition, the facility failed to ensure Resident 23's wheelchair was clean and in good repair, and Resident 10's drywall was repaired when needed. This failure placed residents at risk of potentially avoidable accidents and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to identify, evaluate and analyze risks, and implement safety interventions to reduce risks and hazards for 2 of 3 sampled residents (Resident 1 and 2), reviewed for accidents related to substance use disorder. This failure placed residents at risk of potentially avoidable accidents, and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure that direct care staffing information was accurate upon submission to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for Quarter 1 of 2024 (January 1, 2024 through March 31, 2024) reviewed for Payroll Based Journal (PBJ - mandatory reporting of staffing information based on payroll data) submission. This failure caused the CMS to have inaccurate data related to facility staffing levels and had the potneital to impact resident care and services. Review of the Certification and Survey Provider Enhanced Reports (CASPER) Payroll-Based Journal Staffing Data Report showed the facility reported data for Quarter 1, 2024 (Janaury 1, 2024 through March 31, 2024) at a level lower than required by mandated staffing levels. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to provide care that maintained a resident's dignity for 1 of 3 residents (Resident 1) reviewed for quality of care. This failure placed the resident at risk for psychological harm, worsening skin problems and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that 4 of 4 residents who were assessed to smoke independently (Resident 30, 31, 24, and 20) had a designated safe location to smoke, fire-safe receptacle for disposal of cigarette butts, and a system in place to ensure smoking supplies were stored safely. In addition, the facility failed to ensure smoking evaluations were done timely for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident 22) reviewed for smoking. These failures, which were exacerbated by hotter than normal temperatures during fire season, placed the facility at risk for fire and all residents at risk for serious injury, harm or death and constituted an immediate Jeapordy (IJ). On 07/10/2024 at 1:58 PM, the facility was notified IJ was identified related to F689 CFR §483.25 Free of Accident Hazards/Supervision/Devices. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to protect a resident's right to be free from physical and psychological abuse by another resident for 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident 28) reviewed for abuse. Resident 28 experienced psychological as evidenced by a change in behaviors, being up at night, pacing and fear. This failure placed residents at risk for physical and psychological abuse, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure food was labeled, dated and covered, and expired food was discarded on or before the expiration date for 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure staff wore beard covering while preparing and serving food. These failures resulted in risk of food borne illness and diminished quality of life for all residents. In an observation of the facility kitchen on 07/08/2024 at 8:50 AM the following foods were noted in the refrigerators/freezers that were expired and/or past the use by date: -tortillas use by 6/30/2024 -macaroni salad use by 6/30/2024 -salsa use by 6/20/2024 -strawberry yogurt with expiration date of 6/1/2024 In addition, there were open packages of various berries that were not dated, uncovered celery in the refrigerator, and an open undated package of cooked eggs. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure personal protective equipment (PPE) was implemented timely in accordance with the guidelines of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the Local Health Department for the use of facial coverings after Resident 18 tested positive for COVID-19. This failure placed all residents and staff at risk for contracting COVID-19 (an acute respiratory illness caused by a virus, capable of producing severe symptoms and in some cases death, especially in older people and those with underlying health conditions). [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a safe, sanitary, homelike environment was maintained at the facility for 3 of 3 hallways reviewed. Failure to provide necessary maintenance and repairs in resident rooms and bathrooms, clean dirty carpets, flooring and wheelchairs and address odoriferous non transient odors throughout the building. placed residents at risk for accidents, injuries, unsanitary living conditions and diminished quality of care and life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure 4 of 6 sample residents (28, 35, 40, 14) reviewed for Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR, 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 PASARR Level II (a more in-depth screening assessment) had been made. this faliure placed residents at risk on unmet care needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to consistently provide bathing and/or grooming for 13 of 16 sampled residents (17, 18, 8, 1, 16, 13, 36, 39, 294, 33, 22, 14, 34) reviewed for activities of daily living. This failure placed the residents 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 ensure 2 of 3 nursing assistants (Staff V,W) met competency requirements defined under State Law, for license and certification. This failure placed residents at risk to receive care from incompetent and unlicensed staff.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure 5 of 8 sampled staff received mandated training on dementia and behavioral health. This failure placed the residents at risk for having unmet care needs and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure catheter care was provided in a dignified manner for 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident 13), reviewed for use and care of a urinary catheter (a flexible tube that passes through the urethra and into the bladder to drain urine). This failure placed the resident at risk for diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident 24) reviewed for accommodation of need, was provided a bariatric commode. This failure to ensure the resident received appropriate toileting equipment in their room placed them at risk for diminished independent functioning, and a loss of dignity and comfort.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to inform and provide written information concerning the right of their residents to formulate an advance directive for 2 of 3 sampled residents (Resident 17, 33) reviewed. This failure placed residents at risk of not being able to exercise their rights and not having their wishes honored.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure allegations of abuse were identified as such and reported to the State Survey Agency as required for 2 of 4 sampled residents (Resident 28, 40) reviewed for abuse. Failure to report an allegation of abuse by Resident 14 towards Resident 28, and failure to identify and report resident to resident altercations involving Resident 40 as potential abuse, placed the residents at risk for additional abuse, unmet care needs and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to thoroughly investigate allegations of abuse for 2 of 4 sampled residents (Resident 28, 40) reviewed for abuse. This failure placed residents at risk for not being adequately protected from additional episodes of abuse, unmet care needs and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure care plan interventions were implemented for 1 of 5 sampled residents (Resident 1) reviewed for care planning. Failure to ensure fall interventions for Resident 1 were followed. this failure placed the residents at risk for injury, and decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and observations, during the medication cart review, the facility failed to provide timely administration of prepared medications according to accepted standards of clinical practice for 1 of 2 medication carts reviewed. This failure placed residents at risk of medication errors and decreased quality of life. According to the Institute for Safe Medication Practices, a delay between preparation and administration of a medication or the preparation of multiple medications for different clients is a contributing factor to medication errors and a risk to patient safety. (ISMP Canada Safety Bulletin - Volume 23 o Issue 12 o December 19, 2023, Pre-pouring Medications: A Risky Approach)
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to implement bowel management protocol when indicated for 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident 26), reviewed for constipation. These failures placed residents at risk for complications, worsening conditions, and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff obtained accurate and timely weights 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident 1) reviewed for nutrition. In addition, the facility failed to ensure the physician was notified of a change in a resident's condition (Resident 17) that impacted their nutrition. These failures placed the residents at risk for unrecognized, unplanned, significant weight loss, and nutritional complications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents had current and complete oxygen orders and failed to ensure that oxygen equipment was maintained in a clean manner for 4 of 4 sampled residents (Resident 16, 39, 14, 27) reviewed for respiratory care. These failures placed the residents at risk for respiratory complications and infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide person-centered pain management for 1 of 2 sampled resident (Resident 294). Resident 294 was not offered pain medication and non-pharmacological pain interventions, non-pharmacological interventions were not documented when they were administered and failed to notify the physician and request additional pain management interventions. These failures placed the resident at risk for increased pain and decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, observation and record review, the facility failed to provide medically related social services to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental and psychosocial well-being for 1 of 3 residents (Resident 28) Failure to assist with discharge planning placed resident at risk for a decreased quality of life.
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 of 1 medication storage rooms. The facility further failed to ensure narcotics were locked in a permanently affixed narcotic container in 1 of 1 medication storage room refrigerators. These failures placed residents at risk for receiving compromised or ineffective medication and placed the facility at risk for potential diversion or misappropriation of narcotic medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review the facility failed to implement their respiratory protection program for fit testing procedures which included a medical evaluation, fit testing (a 20 to 30 minute procedure to ensure a proper seal between the respirator face piece and the staff member's face) and training on the use and wearing of the respirator mask) of the N95 respirator mask (respiratory protective device designed to achieve a very close facial fit and very efficient filtration of airborne particles) for staff. The facility had not implemented the respiratory protection program for 4 of 5 staff (Staff A, B, C, D) every year within 12 months of the date of the last fit test. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews and record review, the facility failed to perform thorough assessments, evaluate for changes in condition and notify the physician following significant changes in condition for 1 of 3 residents (Resident 1) reviewed for assessments. This failed practice placed Resident 1 at risk for a delay in medical treatment and medical complications.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review the facility failed to ensure timely physician visits were completed for 1 of 3 residents (Resident 1) reviewed for physician visits. This failure placed residents at risk of being denied face-to-face contact with a physician, comprehensive reviews and physician assessments of their health and well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to timely complete, thoroughly investigate and provide prompt resolutions for concerns brought forth to staff by residents and/or their representatives individually or during the Resident Council Meeting for March 2024 for 3 of 8 residents (Residents 2, 4 and 5) reviewed for grievances. There was no documentation staff informed residents of the corrective actions taken, if any, to address their reported concerns. These failures prevented the facility from ensuring residents' concerns were timely and effectively addressed, care trends were identified and placed all residents at risk of frustration, diminished self worth, unmet care needs and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews and record review the facility failed to provide assistance with activities of daily living relative to bathing for 2 of 7 residents (Residents 1 and 2) dependent on staff for bathing. This failed practice placed residents at risk for embarrassment, poor hygiene, unmet care needs and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review the facility failed to ensure staff reported allegations of abuse immediately to administrative staff, and as mandatory reporters to the State Survey Agency as required, which caused a delay in investigating alleged staff to resident abuse for 1 of 1 resident (Resident 1) reviewed for abuse reporting. This failure placed residents at risk for lack of protection from being abused and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review the facility failed to ensure supervision was provided following a decline in function, recent fall from the toilet and recent unconscious episode to 1 of 3 residents (Resident 1) reviewed for falls with injuries. Despite Resident 1's changes in condition their plan of care was not revised to address the need for additional staff supervision with toileting. This failed practice resulted in actual harm to Resident 1 who fell from the toilet after being left unsupervised by staff. Resident 1 sustained multiple facial fractures, skull fracture and subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH - bleeding in the space between the brain and the tissue covering the brain) and was hospitalized for nine days.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to maintain a sanitary kitchen environment and to prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food services. Failure to ensure food was stored and served in a sanitary manner as well as maintaining a sanitary kitchen environment placed all residents at risk for cross-contamination (physical spread of germs), food borne illnesses and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review the facility failed to prepare palatable (acceptable/appetizing) meals for 6 of 9 residents (Resident 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) reviewed for food service. This failure placed the residents at risk for a diminished dining experience, dissatisfaction with food served and a potential for less than adequate nutritional intake leading to weight loss.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide required transfer notices to 4 of 4 sample residents (6, 8, 18, 30), reviewed for hospitalization. The facility failed to provide the resident and/or their representative a written notice at the time the resident was transferred to the hospital, and failed to send a copy of the notice to the Ombudsman as required.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide required bed-hold notices for 4 of 4 sample residents (6, 8, 18, 30), reviewed for hospitalization. The facility failed to provide a written copy of a bed-hold notice prior to or within 24-hours of transfer to the hospital. This failure created the potential for residents and responsible parties to not have the information needed to safeguard their return to the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one staff member disinfected a multi-use glucometer (a small, portable machine used to measure how much glucose - a type of sugar - is in the blood), per manufacturer's instructions between uses for one of three sample residents (11), observed receiving finger stick blood glucose tests. This failure had the potential to spread bloodborne pathogens during finger-stick blood glucose checks between three residents who shared the glucometer.
41 fire safety citations on file: 16 on June 14, 2025, 15 on July 22, 2024, 10 on March 8, 2023.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| April 7, 2026 | Fine | $9,347 |
| June 28, 2024 | Fine | $39,867 |
| October 12, 2023 | Fine | $27,617 |
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) | 3.67 | 4.36 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 1.01 | 0.94 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.18 | 3.80 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.43 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.23 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 71.4% | 45.1% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 60.0% | 45.4% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.70 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 3.87 on weekdays and 3.18 on weekends, 18% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 39.3% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.47 in April to June 2025 to 3.67 in January to March 2026.
| Quarter | All nursing staff | Registered nurses | Weekdays | Weekends | Contract staff share | Days with no RN hours | Residents a day |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.67 | 1.01 | 3.87 | 3.18 | 39.3% | 0 of 90 | 44 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.70 | 0.80 | 3.84 | 3.36 | 39.4% | 0 of 92 | 45 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.85 | 0.77 | 3.99 | 3.49 | 34.1% | 0 of 92 | 44 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.47 | 0.83 | 3.63 | 3.06 | 32.3% | 0 of 91 | 43 |
| 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 | 16.1 | 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 | 1.4 | 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 | 1.1 | 1.3 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 18.6 | 17.2 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 7.5 | 4.3 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 18.6 | 15.1 | 15.4 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.0 | 1.3 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 3.4 | 1.5 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Colfax Health and Rehabilitation of Cascadia's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (46.2% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
46.2% 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. 64 eligible stays.
10.2% 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. 68 eligible stays.
6.9% 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. 40 eligible stays.
42.9% 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. 28 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. 32 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. 32 residents counted.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Median of homes: Washington98.3% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 12 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: COLFAX OF CASCADIA LLC. CMS links this home to Cascadia Healthcare, a group of 47 nursing homes averaging 3.1 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cascadia Washington Operations LLC | Direct ownership interest | Organization | 05/01/2022 | |
| Cascadia Hc Group LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 06/05/2025 | |
| Cascadia Healthcare LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 05/01/2022 | |
| Cascadia Holdco LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 06/05/2025 | |
| Hammond, Owen | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 05/01/2022 | |
| Laforte, Stephen | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 06/05/2025 | |
| Nelson, Timothy | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 06/05/2025 | |
| Timberline Ohi Tenant LLC | 5% or greater security interest | Organization | 06/05/2025 | |
| White Oak Healthcare Finance LLC | 5% or greater security interest | Organization | 05/01/2022 | |
| Cascadia Hc Group LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 06/05/2025 | |
| Cascadia Healthcare LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 06/05/2025 | |
| Cascadia Holdco LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 06/05/2025 | |
| Cascadia Services LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 05/01/2022 | |
| Cascadia Washington Operations LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 06/05/2025 | |
| Gunkel, Bobbie | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 08/05/2024 | |
| Hammond, Owen | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/01/2023 | |
| Laforte, Stephen | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 06/05/2025 | |
| Nelson, Timothy | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 06/05/2025 | |
| Strobel, Thomas | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/01/2023 | |
| Cascadia Services LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 07/03/2025 | |
| Timberline Ohi Tenant LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 06/05/2025 | |
| Gunkel, Bobbie | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 07/03/2025 | |
| Strobel, Thomas | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 07/03/2025 |
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.