Home / Washington / Gig Harbor
2909 14th Avenue Northwest, Gig Harbor, WA 98335 · Pierce County · (253) 851-5433
108 certified beds, about 103 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1996
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 505499 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on February 27, 2026, inspectors cited 7 health deficiencies (the Washington average is 15.8, the national average 9.2).
Of 36 health citations since October 2023, 2 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists 2 fines totaling $29,595 in the last three years; the largest was $18,233, and the latest is dated August 18, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 4.32 hours per resident per day, against 4.36 across Washington and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 1.14 of those hours.
44.3% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Washington average 45.1%).
CMS links it to Life Care Centers of America, an affiliated group of 194 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 36 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents' with fluid restrictions had fluid intake monitoring to avoid fluid overload for 3 of 3 sampled residents (Residents 94, 100, and 111) when reviewed for nutrition. This failure placed residents at risk of fluid overload, avoidable discomfort, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement Abuse Prohibition policies and procedures including but not limited to identification, investigation, protection and reporting for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident 1) when reviewed for abuse. These failures placed residents at risk for unidentified abuse, neglect, and/or injury.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the minimum data set assessment (MDS) accurately reflected the status for 2 of 19 sampled residents (Residents 11 and 8) when reviewed for accuracy of assessments. Failure to accurately reflect Resident 11's hospice status and Resident 8's pressure ulcer/skin injury status placed the residents at risk for unmet care, inaccurate medical record data, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide nonpharmacological interventions (NPI) prior to the use of as needed pain medications for 1 of 6 sampled residents (Resident 7) when reviewed for pain management. This failure placed the residents at risk of receiving unneeded medications and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to consistently maintain the medication refrigerator temperature log in 1 of 3 medication rooms (Transitional Care Unit/TCU), to ensure resident's were assessed to self-administer medications for 1 of 1 sampled residents (Resident 6), and 2 of 6 medication/treatments carts (TCU treatment and TCU medication carts) , when reviewed for medication storage. These failures placed the residents at risk of receiving compromised or ineffective medications, drug diversion, and potential loss of medications/treatments.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide food in accordance with preferences for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident 94) when reviewed for preferences. This failure placed residents at risk for reduced nutritional intake and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to post the location of the survey results and place the binder in identifiable location. This failure prevented residents, family members and visitors from exercising their right to review past survey results and the facility's plans of correction to evaluate the quality of care provided by the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure an environment that is free from accident hazards by not following their fall protocol, which included bed height placement, fall assessment, and call light within reach for 7 of 12 residents (Residents 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10) reviewed for falls. This failure placed residents at risk of increased falls, significant injury with fall, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were administered their ordered anticoagulation (blood thinner-to reduce the risk of the formation of blood clots) medication for 3 of 15 sampled residents (Resident 1, 2, and 3) reviewed for significant medication errors. Resident 3 experienced harm when they did not receive anticoagulation medication as ordered for 17 days due to a medication reconciliation error and had a decline in condition that included signs and symptoms of a stroke (a medical condition that occurs when blood flow to the brain is interrupted or reduced, leading to brain tissue damage) that required transport to the emergency room (ER) for evaluation and treatment. This failure placed residents who were prescribed anticoagulant medications at risk for medical complications, injury and a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to prepare and store food in a sanitary manner in the main kitchen and 3 of 3 resident refrigerators (West, East, and Transitional Care Unit) when reviewed for kitchen. This failure placed residents at risk of consuming expired or spoiled food, foodborne illness, avoidable discomfort, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide written notification of the reason for transfer to the hospital to the Office of State Long-Term Care Ombudsman (SLTCO, an advocacy group for residents in a nursing home) and/or to the resident/resident representative of discharges for 4 of 4 sampled residents (Residents 32, 54, 95, and 26) reviewed for hospitalization and/or discharge. These failures placed residents at risk for being inappropriately discharged , lack of access to an advocate who could inform them of their options and rights, and to ensure that the SLTCO and resident/ resident representative was aware of facility practices and activities related to transfers and discharges.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a bed-hold notice in writing at the time of transfer/discharge to the hospital and/or to provide/complete bed-hold notices within 24 hours of transfer/discharge to the hospital for 3 of 4 sample residents (Residents 32, 26, and 95) reviewed for hospitalization/discharge. This failure placed the residents at risk for a lack of knowledge regarding the right to a bed-hold while they were hospitalized .
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) assessments were accurately completed for 3 of 6 sampled residents (Residents 29, 49 and 40) reviewed for PASARRs and unnecessary medications. This failure placed the residents at risk for unidentified mental health care needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure care plans were reviewed and revised after each quarterly assessment for 3 of 4 sampled residents (Residents 32, 50, and 22) when reviewed for care planning. This failure placed residents at risk of not receiving required care, avoidable decrease in health status, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure there was a system to provide care and services consistent with standards of quality of care for 2 of 3 sampled residents (Residents 57 and 71) when reviewed for edema/heart failure, for 4 of 8 sampled residents (Residents 7, 40, 57 and 78) when reviewed for bowel management, for 1 of 1 sampled residents (Resident 40) when reviewed for hospice service, and for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident 32) when reviewed for hospitalization. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure medications and biologicals were securely locked for 3 of 26 sampled residents (Residents 90, 9, and 64) when reviewed for environment. This failure placed the resident at risk for consuming non-prescribed medications, unintended side effects of medications, medical complications, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to periodically review residents advanced directive (AD, a legal document that states your wishes for medical care if you are unable to make decisions for yourself) for 1 of 4 sampled residents (Resident 32) when reviewed for advanced directive. This failure placed the resident at risk of not having an established decisionmaker, lack of ability to direct care, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents' personal items were safe for 1 of 5 sampled residents (Resident 64) when reviewed for Personal Property and failed to ensure residents' rooms were homelike for 1 of 6 sampled residents (Resident 50) when reviewed for environment. These failures placed residents at risk of financial exploitation, feelings of worthlessness, decreased mood, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement pressure ulcer care for 2 of 4 sampled residents (Residents 78 and 72) reviewed for pressure injuries (injuries to skin and underlying tissue resulting from prolonged pressure on the skin). This failure placed the resident at risk for worsening pressure injuries, pain, and a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide adequate fluids to maintain hydration for 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident 40) when reviewed for hydration and failed to monitor and accurately document fluids consumed to ensure fluid restrictions were implemented per provider's orders for 1 of 5 sampled residents (Residents 32) reviewed for nutrition and/or dialysis (treatment to filter wastes and water from the blood). This failure placed residents at risk for over hydration, avoidable discomfort, and a diminished quality of life. Resident 40 Review of the electronic health record (EHR) showed Resident 40 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include dementia and traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage (a bleed in the brain). [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to manage oxygen therapy consistent with professional standards of practice and the comprehensive person-centered care plan by not ensuring provider's orders and care plans were in place and/or followed for 2 of 4 sampled residents (Residents 71 and 72) when reviewed of respiratory care. These failures placed residents at risk for unmet needs and a decreased quality of life. Resident 71 Review of the electronic health record (EHR) showed Resident 71 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of congestive heart failure (CHF, when the heart is not able to pump enough blood causing fluid to build up in the lungs and/or limbs). The resident was able to make needs known. Review of the EHR on 01/08/2025 at 4:45 PM showed no care plan had been initiated for oxygen use. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff provided adequate pain management in a timely manner for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident 29) when reviewed for pain management. This failure had the potential for the resident to have a delay in treatment to receive the necessary pain medication as ordered, a diminished quality of life and unmet needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to obtain an agreement/contract with a resident's dialysis provider to ensure all care and services necessary were being provided and coordinated for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident 32) reviewed for dialysis (treatment to filter waste and water from the blood). This failure placed the resident at risk for inadequate quality of care and decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to consistently initiate non-pharmacological interventions prior to the administration of as needed pain medication for 2 of 5 sample residents (Residents 18 and 398) reviewed for unnecessary medications. These failures placed residents at risk for receiving unnecessary medications and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide dental services for 1 of 3 sample residents (Resident 78) reviewed for dental. This failure placed the resident at risk of difficulty eating and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide prompt dental services for 1 of 3 sample residents (Resident 50) reviewed for dental services. This failure placed the resident at risk for continued dental problems and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident's medical records were accurately documented according to professional standards of practice for 2 of 26 sampled residents (Residents 398 and 71) when reviewed for medical records. This failure placed the residents at risk for isolation, unmet care needs, and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, facility failed to ensure professional standards were met for 2 of 2 sampled residents (Resident 1 & 2) reviewed for physicians orders and care of residents with peripherally inserted central catheter lines (PICC, lines placed through the upper arm in a large vein near the heart). Failure to follow physician orders and professional standards of care when assessing and performing PICC line dressing changes placed residents at risk for medical complications including bloodstream infections.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to maintain mechanical lifts in good repair for 3 of 3 mechanical lifts when reviewed for accident hazards. This failure placed residents at risk of falling when using the mechanical lift, avoidable injury, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure 3 of 5 residents (Residents 49, 68 and 96) received their physician-ordered therapeutic diets to support the resident's plan of care. This failure placed residents at risk for medical complications, nutritional deficits, and weight gain.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 5 sampled residents (Resident 6), reviewed for unnecessary medications, and/or her representative, were fully informed of the potential risks associated with use of a psychotropic medication (medication which alters thought processes). This failure placed the resident at risk for adverse medication side effects, and the resident and/or their representative at risk for not being able to make an informed decision about a medication.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide care and services that met professional standards for 1 of 1 resident (Resident 12) reviewed for hydration. Failure to accurately monitor fluid intake for residents who required fluid restriction and failure to monitor daily weights for a resident with congestive heart failure (a disease were the heart can not pump blood well enough, and blood and fluids collect in the lungs and legs over time) placed the residents at risk for acute medical complications and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide assistance and follow up on an appointment for dental care services for 1 of 3 Residents (Residents 64) reviewed for dental services. This failure placed the resident at potential risk for continued dental problems and decreased the quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to obtain and incorporate a hospice plan of care into the resident's facility plan of care for 1 of 1 resident (Resident 4) when reviewed for hospice. This failure placed the resident at risk of a lack of needed services, discoordination of care, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to provide food in accordance with preferences for 3 of 6 residents (Residents 68, 94, and 95) reviewed during meal service. This failure placed residents at risk for potential dissatisfaction with meals and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide care and services according to professional standards of practice to prevent pressure injury for 1 of 3 residents (Resident 1) reviewed for pressure injuries. Resident 1 experienced harm when the facility failed to monitor the integrity of Resident 1's skin under a removable leg/knee immobilizer brace which developed into a lower leg pressure injury that was unstageable and contained dead tissue in the wound bed.
27 fire safety citations on file: 9 on February 27, 2026, 8 on January 13, 2025, 10 on February 8, 2024.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| August 18, 2025 | Fine | $11,362 |
| October 26, 2023 | Fine | $18,233 |
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) | 4.32 | 4.36 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 1.14 | 0.94 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.54 | 3.80 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.40 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.78 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 44.3% | 45.1% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 16.0% | 45.4% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 4.18 hours a day for residents as sick as this home's (its case-mix figure). The staffing star compares the two.
Every nursing home sends CMS its staff hours for each day (the Payroll Based Journal). Here they are added up by quarter. The latest quarter is the one behind the figures above. In January to March 2026, nursing staff hours per resident were 4.63 on weekdays and 3.54 on weekends, 24% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.0% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 4.37 in April to June 2025 to 4.32 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 | 4.32 | 1.14 | 4.63 | 3.54 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 103 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 4.34 | 1.11 | 4.64 | 3.57 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 101 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 4.32 | 1.09 | 4.61 | 3.58 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 101 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 4.37 | 1.02 | 4.64 | 3.69 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 97 |
| 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 | 4.7 | 14.2 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.4 | 1.6 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.8 | 2.6 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.4 | 1.3 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 7.8 | 17.2 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.0 | 4.3 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 17.1 | 15.1 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 23.6 | 19.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 12.2 | 13.4 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.8 | 1.3 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.0 | 1.5 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Cottesmore of Life Care's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it better than the national rate (68.8% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
68.8% 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. 481 eligible stays.
7.6% this home
Better than 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. 454 eligible stays.
7.0% 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. 312 eligible stays.
87.2% 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. 179 residents counted.
0.6% 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. 315 residents counted.
1.5% 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. 315 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. 173 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: GIG HARBOR OPERATIONS, LLC. CMS links this home to Life Care Centers of America, a group of 194 nursing homes averaging 3.4 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Developers Investment Company Inc | Direct ownership interest | Organization | 02/26/1996 | |
| Preston, Forrest | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 02/26/1996 | |
| Butner, Nancy | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 09/16/2018 | |
| Lockwood, Ryan | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 10/31/2023 | |
| Verlinda, Cathy | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 01/02/2024 | |
| Cross, Cindy | Corporate officer | Individual | 02/01/1996 | |
| Henry, Terry | Corporate officer | Individual | 08/16/1999 | |
| Lay, Lisa | Corporate officer | Individual | 02/09/2018 | |
| Swanker, Richard | Corporate officer | Individual | 04/01/2011 | |
| Thurmond, Joan | Corporate officer | Individual | 09/22/2000 | |
| Ziegler, James | Corporate officer | Individual | 08/16/1999 | |
| Developers Investment Company Inc | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 02/26/1996 | |
| Gig Harbor Operations, LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 05/01/1996 | |
| Life Care Centers of America, Inc. | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 02/01/1996 | |
| Butner, Nancy | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 09/16/2018 | |
| Fletcher, Todd | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/26/1996 | |
| Lockwood, Ryan | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 10/31/2023 | |
| Preston, Aubrey | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 03/06/2025 | |
| Preston, Forrest | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/26/1996 | |
| Sekeramayi, Maggie | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 08/01/2022 | |
| Verlinda, Cathy | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/02/2024 | |
| Gig Harbor Operations, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 08/31/2000 | |
| Life Care Centers of America, Inc. | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 03/18/2025 | |
| Fletcher, Todd | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 08/31/2000 | |
| Lockwood, Ryan | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 03/18/2025 | |
| Preston, Forrest | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 08/31/2000 | |
| Sekeramayi, Maggie | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 03/18/2025 |
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.