Home / Washington / Yakima
505 North 40th Avenue, Yakima, WA 98908 · Yakima County · (509) 248-4446
85 certified beds, about 52 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1967
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 505085 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on December 5, 2025, inspectors cited 10 health deficiencies (the Washington average is 15.8, the national average 9.2).
Of 47 health citations since October 2023, 5 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists 4 fines totaling $239,137 in the last three years; the largest was $116,471, and the latest is dated March 11, 2026.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.59 hours per resident per day, against 4.36 across Washington and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.69 of those hours.
42.9% 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 47 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to identify and prevent an avoidable accident hazard in the resident's environment for 1 of 3 residents (Resident 1) that used both bed bolsters (a soft barrier along the edge of the bed that minimizes the risk of rolling off the bed) and required mechanical lift transfers. Resident 1 experienced harm when they slid out of the lift sling during two-staff assist transfer when the resident in the sling did not clear the top edge of the bolster there by lifting the lower left sling loop up off the lift hook due to no longer being taut and the loop disconnected from the lift. The fall resulted in pain, a forehead wound, and transfer to the hospital where they were diagnosed with an ankle fracture. This failure placed resident with mechanical lift transfers at risk for injury and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision, immediately assess a resident after a fall, implement and evaluate care-plan interventions for efficacy, and ensure care-planned interventions were consistently followed to prevent an avoidable fall for 1 of 5 residents (Resident 54) reviewed for hospitalizations. Resident 54 who had moderately impaired cognition with a known history of falls prior to admission and was assessed at high risk for falls, experienced harm when they had an unwitnessed fall, were found face down on the floor with multiple lacerations, required transfer to the hospital for pain, and were diagnosed with multiple complex fractures (left humerus, hip, and left tibia) which required surgical intervention.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide residents and representatives, information on how to report concerns, incidents and grievances for 4 of 6 residents (35,19, 33and 18) reviewed for grievances. The facility failed to establish a grievance policy that included prominent postings throughout the facility, right to file a grievance by written means or anonymously, the right to review the complaint in writing, and a reasonable time frame for review resolution of the concern. This failure potentially affects residents' quality of care and unresolved concerns.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure investigations were completed and/or thorough for 3 of 5 residents (Resident 40, 35 and 14) reviewed for investigations. This failure to initiate and complete thorough investigations placed residents at risk for unidentified accidents, abuse/neglect and serious injuries.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide a safe, sanitary, comfortable environment was maintained for 2 of 3 shower rooms (East Hall and North Hall), reviewed for environment. This failure placed the residents at risk of an unpleasant, uncomfortable living environment, and safety hazards.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to promote and protect the rights of each resident, including being treated with dignity and respect, for 2 of 2 dining experiences (breakfast meal on 12/02/2025 and lunch meal on 12/05/2025), and 2 of 5 residents (Residents 35 and 51) reviewed for dignity. This failure had the potential to result in emotional distress for failed to treat residents in a dignified manner and honor their rights.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free of unnecessary psychotropic medications (drugs that affects how the brain works, and causes changes in mood, awareness, thoughts, feelings or behavior) when they did not monitor resident specific behaviors or consistently attempt non-pharmacological interventions (alternative treatment of a resident's symptoms that do not involve medications and directed toward understanding, preventing and relieving a resident's distress or loss of abilities) prior to psychotropic medication use for 1 of 5 residents (Resident 54) reviewed for unnecessary psychotropic medications. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure allegations of abuse/neglect involving unwitnessed events with substantial injuries were reported to the State Agency (SA), as required for 1 of 4 residents (Residents 35), reviewed for accidents. The failure to report to the SA resulted in the facility's inability to recognize patterns of potential abuse and/or neglect.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that resident's received appropriate care and services for dialysis (a medical therapy that removes waste products, excess fluids, and toxins from the bloodstream) that were consistent with professional standards of practice for 1 of 1 resident (Resident 7) reviewed for dialysis. The facility did not provide ongoing monitoring or assessment of Resident 7's condition, including obtaining vital signs upon return to the facility after dialysis. The facility also failed to establish an effective, coordinated process for communication with the offsite dialysis center to promote continuity of care. In addition, the facility did not develop or implement an individualized care plan addressing the resident's dialysis needs, associated risks, and required post-dialysis monitoring. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide food that accommodated food preferences for 2 of 4 sample residents (Resident 9 and 51), reviewed for preferences. This failure placed the resident at risk for decreased dietary intake and decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure foods were stored in a clean, dry and sanitary manner and in accordance with professional standards of cleanliness and food safety for 1 of 1 kitchen, 1 of 1 ice machine, and 1 of 1 dry storage room reviewed for food safety. This failure placed residents at risk for ingestion of contaminated food or beverages, cross contamination, and a potential food borne illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to consistently assess skin and/or wounds or implement interventions to ensure the prevention and the worsening of facility-acquired pressure injuries (PI) for 1 of 4 residents (Resident 30) reviewed for PIs. Resident 30 experienced harm when they developed three avoidable PIs (right heel, left heel, and left calf) that were not present upon admission, and a decreased quality of life due to the pain.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure restorative therapy services including the consistent use of braces/splints were implemented timely to prevent avoidable reduction of range of motion (ROM) and mobility for 2 of 5 sampled residents (Residents 27 and 20) reviewed for restorative therapy. Resident 27 experienced harm when they developed right and left-hand contractures (a condition of shortening and hardening of muscles, tendons, or other tissue that leads to muscle stiffening and loss of range of motion of the effected body part). This failed practice placed other residents at risk for contractures, decreased mobility, and pain.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure quarterly (every three months) personal fund statements were provided to residents and/or resident representative (RR) for 3 of 5 sampled residents (Resident 20, 23, and 27) reviewed for personal fund accounts. This failure placed residents at risk of not having an accurate accounting of their personal funds held in trust by the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to have a system in place to promptly resolve grievances that were voiced in Resident Council (a formal meeting for facility residents to communicate preferences and concerns) for 1 of 4 residents (Resident 9) who expressed concerns about broken medical equipment that had been reported during the meeting and not resolved. Additionally, 4 of 4 residents (Residents 13, 4, 6 and 33) who regularly attended Resident Council were unaware of how to file a grievance (a formal complaint by a resident or resident representative [RR]) or who the facility Grievance Officer was. These failures placed residents at risk for overall dissatisfaction with their lives and unresolved concerns.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR, a process to determine if a potential nursing home resident had mental health/intellectual disability needs which required further assessment/treatment) assessment accurately reflected residents' mental health conditions for 2 of 5 residents (Resident 16 and 8) reviewed for unnecessary medications. This failure placed residents at risk for inappropriate nursing home placement and/or not receiving timely and necessary services to meet their mental health needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that a resident who was a trauma survivor received culturally competent, trauma-informed care in accordance with professional standards of practice for 3 of 4 residents (Residents 12, 27, and 38) reviewed for trauma informed care. The facility failed to identify triggers (a stimulus that causes a reaction, often an emotional or physical response) regarding history of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD, a mental health that is triggered by a terrifying event) and interventions. This failure placed the residents at risk for unidentified triggers and re-traumatization.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to provide routine and repair maintenance services for a safe and sanitary environment in 1 of 1 kitchen. This failure placed residents at risk for infection by not having cleanable and maintained surfaces.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide care that maintained a resident's dignity for 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident 12) reviewed for dignity. This failure placed the resident not able to maintain their bowel continence (using the commode) status and only received one shower a week. These failures caused embarrassment for bowel incontinent accidents and lack of shower/cleanliness before going to appointments and family visits. This placed the resident at risk for decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to comprehensively assess and monitor the need of physical restraints (posey (a brand of roll bolsters, an alternative to bed side rails to help protect alert patients from rolling out of the bed) for 2 of 4 residents (Residents 30 and 39) reviewed for physical restraints. In addition, the facility failed to obtain consents in the language the resident was able to read/understand, to document ongoing re-evaluation for the need of the restraint, and to ensure a least restrictive intervention were attempted prior to the use of the restraint. This failed practice placed residents at risk for a diminished quality of life, freedom of movement in their bed, and skin breakdown.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a significant change assessment had been completed for 2 of 4 residents (Resident 9 and 30) reviewed for hospice and end of life care. This failed practice placed the residents at risk for unmet care needs due to their imminent decline and/or improvement in health.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure a Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) Level I form (a screening tool used to determine if a resident requires further evaluation for serious mental illness or intellectual disability), was updated when the resident was newly diagnosed with mental health concerns for 1 of 5 residents (Resident 7) reviewed for PASARR accuracy. This failed practice placed the resident at risk for health and/or emotional decline related to the lack of a professional evaluation to determine if further mental health interventions were required.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident care plans (CPs) were reviewed, revised, and accurately reflected resident care needs for 2 of 5 sampled residents (Residents 38 and 39) whose CPs were reviewed for accuracy. These failures placed residents at risk for unmet care needs and psychosocial interventions to maintain current preferences.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide the necessary care and services to ensure Restorative Aide (RA) Nursing programs were consistently provided for 3 of 5 residents (Resident's 21, 39, and 9) reviewed for activities of daily living (ADLs, basic tasks people perform regularly to care for themselves). This failure placed residents at risk for avoidable decline in function and a diminished ability to reach their highest practicable level of well being.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide meaningful and engaging activities for 1 of 3 residents (Resident 38), that do not participate in activities. Resident 38 did not participate in activities designed for someone who could not see well and had difficulty hearing which was relevant to their mental state. This placed the resident at risk of decreased interactions with people, a decreased meaning to their life, and a decreased mental well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents received care and services in accordance with professional standards of practice regarding ongoing skin assessments for 2 of 5 residents (Residents 37 and 8) reviewed for skin impairment. Additionally, the facility failed to follow physicians' orders to obtain specialized services timely for 2 of 5 Residents (Resident 9 and 20) reviewed for Range of motion (ROM). The facility's failure to provide the care and services required related to non-pressure skin issues and specialized services placed residents at risk for unidentified and/or avoidable decline, delay in treatment, pain/discomfort, and unmet care needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's bathroom had safe and functional Durable Medical Equipment (DME, medically necessary equipment used by people with a medical condition, disability, or injury) for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident 9) reviewed for accident hazards. This failure placed the resident at risk for falls, injuries, and decreased independence.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free of unnecessary psychotropic medications (any medication capable of affecting the mind, emotions, and behavior) for 2 of 5 residents (Residents 7 and 16) reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility failed to consistently develop, monitor, and implement individualized targeted behaviors and ensure as needed (PRN) psychotropic medications were limited to 14-days or had a documented rationale for the extended use. Additionally, the facility failed to consistently obtain informed consent for the use of psychotropic medications. These failures placed residents at an increased risk for experiencing medication-related adverse side effects, and a decreased independence for making their own informed decisions.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to provide access of an interpreter for 1 of 1 resident (Resident 1) reviewed for communication. This failure resulted in miscommunications between the resident, family and facility staff placing Resident 1 at risk for frustration and unmet care needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to assess a change in condition in a timely manner for 1 of 3 residents (Resident 1) reviewed for quality of care. This failure caused delay in treatment when they complained of abdominal pain. These failures placed Resident 1 at risk for unmanaged pain.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview the facility failed to provide a cleanable and sanitary environment for 3 of 10 resident rooms (rooms [ROOM NUMBER]) the tiles were worn with cracks between the tiles that were not cleanable. There was a black sticky substance between the tiles on the flooring. This failure placed staff and residents at an increased risk for infectious diseases and non-functional resident environment related to uncleanable flooring surfaces.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to protect the residents' right to be free of abuse when Staff D, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) utilized verbal abuse and intimidation during cares for 3 of 4 residents (Resident 1, 2, and 3) reviewed for abuse. This deficient practice placed residents at risk for unrecognized emotional harm, mental anguish, and the potential for additional abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to report an allegation of abuse to the State Agency for 1 of 4 residents (Resident 1) reviewed for abuse and neglect. This deficient practice placed residents at risk for unidentified and potential ongoing abuse and/or neglect.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to identify and correct environmental hazards for assistive devices (wheelchair) and complete assessments for fall risks to reduce and/or eliminate falls for 3 of 4 residents (Resident 50, 25, and 48) reviewed for accident hazards. These failures placed the residents at risk for avoidable accidents and resulted in actual harm to Resident 50, when they experienced a fall from their wheelchair when the right brake failed to stay locked during a transfer from their wheelchair to their recliner, resulting in a fractured (broken) right wrist.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to document in the medical record any discussions regarding Advanced Directives (AD), including incorporation into the care planning process, for 4 of 5 residents (Residents 12, 28, 50 and 46) reviewed for AD. This failure placed the residents at risk of losing their right to have their preferences/decisions followed regarding end-of-life care.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the conveyance of funds in a resident trust fund account occurred within 30 days following their death, for 1 of 1 resident (Resident 69), reviewed for conveyance of resident funds. This failure placed the state department at risk for loss of funds and interest accumulated.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure privacy was provided during toileting for 2 of 3 residents (Resident 45 and 50) reviewed for personal privacy. This failure placed the residents at risk for embarrassment and a lack of dignified care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to protect the resident's right to be free from neglect when staff failed to provide a wheelchair in good working condition for 1 of 1 resident (Resident 50) reviewed for neglect. This failed practice put Resident 50 at risk for further accidents secondary to the facility not acting to repair the brakes on the resident's wheelchair that were not working.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure an allegation of neglect was reported to the State Agency as required for 1 of 1 resident (Resident 50) reviewed for neglect. Failure to report allegations of neglect placed residents at risk for additional neglect.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to provide written bed hold information prior to transfers to an acute care hospital for 2 of 4 residents (Resident 42 and 9) reviewed for hospital discharge. This failure placed the residents at risk for lack of knowledge of the right to hold their bed while in the hospital.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to develop a base line care plan within 48 hours of admission to include resident specific initial goals and treatment plans for 1 of 3 newly admitted residents (Resident 28) reviewed for base line care plan. This failure placed the resident at risk for a lack of continuity of care and unmet care needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure adequate pain control for 1 of 3 residents (Resident 48) reviewed for pain. This failure resulted in Resident 48 experiencing severe pain during an indwelling catheter (a hollow tube inserted into the bladder through the penis to drain urine) exchange (procedure to replace previous indwelling catheter with a new one). This failure to recognize and implement pain interventions to minimize pain for Resident 48 caused inadequate pain control and a diminished quality of life when their pain was unrelieved during the indwelling catheter exchange.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that 1 of 4 residents (Resident 28), reviewed for unnecessary medications, had an adequate indication for use of a psychotropic medication (a class of medication that affects brain activity of mental functioning and behavior) based on clinical rationale. Additionally, the facility failed to provide sufficient monitoring for adverse side effects (ASE, unwanted, undesirable effects that are possibly related to medication) with the use of an antipsychotic medication (a class of psychotropic medication with a high risk for ASE). This failure placed Resident 28 at risk for a deterioration in their mental and physical health status.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate of less than five percent. Two medication errors were identified for 2 of 11 residents (Residents 50 and 37) observed during 25 medication administration opportunities, that resulted in an error rate of 8%. Errors in medication administration had the potential to place residents at risk for not receiving the full therapeutic effect of the medication and possible adverse side effects.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure one of one medication storage room (South Hall), one of one medication storage refrigerator, and one of three medication carts (North Hall) were free from expired medications. This failed practice placed the residents at risk for receiving expired medication and/or experiencing compromised or ineffective medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the designated Infection Preventionist (IP) met the qualifications for experience, education, and training or certification for the role to assume responsibility for the facility's Infection Prevention Control Program (IPCP). This failure placed residents, family members, and staff at risk of contracting communicable diseases.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement their Respiratory Protection Program (RPP) to ensure resident and staff safety by not completing annual respiratory mask fit testing (a test conducted to verify that a respirator is both comfortable and provides the wearer with the expected protection) for 16 of 78 staff reviewed for annual fit testing and annual respiratory training. This failed practice put all residents at risk for developing communicable diseases and infections.
37 fire safety citations on file: 8 on December 5, 2025, 15 on December 9, 2024, 14 on October 31, 2023.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| March 11, 2026 | Fine | $12,438 |
| December 5, 2025 | Fine | $52,767 |
| December 9, 2024 | Fine | $116,471 |
| December 9, 2024 | Payment Denial | 12 days from March 9, 2025 |
| October 9, 2023 | Fine | $57,461 |
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) | 3.59 | 4.36 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.69 | 0.94 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.21 | 3.80 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.25 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.65 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 42.9% | 45.1% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 33.3% | 45.4% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.86 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 3.74 on weekdays and 3.21 on weekends, 14% 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 3.54 in April to June 2025 to 3.59 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 | 3.59 | 0.69 | 3.74 | 3.21 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 52 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.55 | 0.64 | 3.71 | 3.13 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 50 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.65 | 0.60 | 3.77 | 3.34 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 49 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.54 | 0.59 | 3.70 | 3.13 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 50 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Washington, Jan to Mar 2026 | 4.21 | 0.90 | 4.44 | 3.66 | 3.7% | 0.1% of days |
Hours per resident per day: staff hours in the quarter divided by resident days (the daily census CMS derives from resident assessments). Registered nurses include the director of nursing and RNs with administrative duties; aides include nurse aides in training and medication aides, as in CMS's own staffing measure. How these are calculated.
Staff pay reports
No staff pay figure for this home has passed review yet. A figure appears only after at least 5 reports from at least 3 different people, sent over at least 60 days, have passed review. If you work here, your report helps start one.
| Job | Median | Middle half | Employed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Washington, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $23.65 | $22.59 to $27.85 | 30,270 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $39.98 | $36.98 to $45.18 | 6,780 |
| Registered nurses | $59.71 | $49.57 to $64.54 | 69,260 |
| United States, nursing care facilities | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $20.67 | $17.91 to $22.55 | 534,270 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $33.86 | $30.05 to $37.40 | 188,210 |
| Registered nurses | $41.11 | $37.85 to $47.68 | 142,270 |
Hourly wages; the middle half runs from the 25th to the 75th percentile. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, May 2025. BLS has no separate estimate for medication aides. These are survey estimates for whole occupations, not figures for any one home.
The measures CMS uses for the quality star. Lower is better for every one of them.
| Measure | This home | Washington | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 20.7 | 14.2 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.3 | 1.0 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.0 | 1.6 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.6 | 2.6 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 7.1 | 1.3 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 32.2 | 17.2 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 10.0 | 4.3 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 24.3 | 15.1 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 20.9 | 19.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 12.6 | 13.4 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.9 | 1.5 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Crescent Health Care's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (58.0% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
58.0% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · Washington: 71 better, 16 worse
Rate of successful return to home or community from a SNF (risk-standardized discharge to community rate). Higher is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 69 eligible stays.
10.0% 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. 65 eligible stays.
8.4% 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. 49 eligible stays.
31.4% 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. 35 residents counted.
1.8% 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. 56 residents counted.
1.6% 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. 56 residents counted.
92.3% 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. 26 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: CRESCENT HEALTH CARE, INC..
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harrington, Molly | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 100% | 08/01/2006 |
| Harrington, Molly | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 02/01/2006 |
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.