Home / Washington / Tacoma
1301 N Highlands Parkway, Tacoma, WA 98406 · Pierce County · (253) 752-7112
187 certified beds, about 125 residents a day · Non profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1992
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 505435 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on May 9, 2025, inspectors cited 15 health deficiencies (the Washington average is 15.8, the national average 9.2).
Of 53 health citations since August 2023, 1 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists no fines against this home in the last three years.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 4.33 hours per resident per day, against 4.36 across Washington and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.67 of those hours.
43.2% 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 53 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to incorporate resident's and resident representative's preferences for medical oversight into the plan of care for 1 of 3 residents (Resident 2) reviewed for resident rights. This failure placed residents at risk of suboptimal clinical outcomes, medical complications and frustration.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide complete medical records upon request for 2 of 3 residents (Resident 1 and 2) reviewed for medical records. This failure placed residents at risk of lack of knowledge of their medical condition, continuity of care and frustration.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to recognize potential diabetic complications for 1 of 3 residents (Resident 1) and failed to determine and document cause and treatment for a skin tear for 1 of 3 residents (Resident 2) reviewed for quality of care. This failure placed residents at risk of medical complications, infection and a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to accurately document the amount of food eaten for 2 of 3 residents (Resident 3 and 4) reviewed for documentation. This failure placed residents at risk for inaccurate medical records, clinical assessments and lack of clinical interventions.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to follow their bowel protocol by not administering necessary bowel medications per policy and provider orders for 1 of 4 residents (Resident 1) reviewed for constipation. This failure placed residents at risk of constipation, rehospitalization, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure medical records were complete and accurate for 3 of 3 residents (Resident 1, 2 and 3). This failure placed residents at risk for incomplete and inaccurate medical records and unmet care needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify residents of what the charge would be for services not covered under their Medicare Managed Care and/or private pay agreements for 1 of 1 resident (Resident 3) reviewed for billing practices. This failure put residents at risk of unknown service costs, frustration and lack of services.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop and/or implement comprehensive care plans for 5 of 23 sampled residents (Residents 104, 20, 72, 7 and 114) whose care plans were reviewed. Failure to develop/implement a comprehensive care plan related to activities, pain, edema (fluid build-up causing swelling), and personal hygiene placed the resident at risk for unmet needs and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteResident 7 Resident 7 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included chronic kidney disease (a long-term disease where the kidneys cannot filter the blood properly), dependence on renal dialysis (a treatment to remove extra fluid from the body), and localized edema (swelling in specific areas in the body). The minimum data set (MDS), an assessment tool, dated 04/21/2025, showed Resident 7 was able to make needs known. Review of provider orders showed Resident 7 had an order to wear compression stockings every day for edema. Review showed compression stockings were ordered to be put on in the morning and removed at bedtime. Observation on 05/05/2025 at 2:15 PM showed Resident 7 with moderate edema to both feet. Resident 7 was sitting up in their wheelchair with feet on the floor. Resident 7 did not have compression socks on. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to monitor residents' fluid intake and provide the amount of fluid per provider's orders for 2 of 2 sampled residents (Residents 7 and 381) when reviewed for nutrition/hydration. This failure placed residents at risk of fluid overload, avoidable pain, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure oxygen tubing was dated and regularly changed for 3 of 3 sampled residents (Residents 7, 112 and 87) when reviewed for respiratory care. This failure placed residents at risk for unmet care needs, medical complications, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide an opportunity for a resident to see the new location and meet new roommates for 1 of 1 Sample Resident (Resident 31) when reviewed for room changes. This failure placed residents at risk for psychosocial decline and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to obtain a court-appointed guardianshipyes (legal process where a court appoints someone to make decisions for a person who is unable to do so for themselves) and/or to obtain and periodically review a resident's advanced directive (AD, a legal document that establishes a medical decisionmaker if you are unable to make decisions for yourself) for 2 of 3 sampled residents (Residents 14 and 99) when reviewed for advanced directive. This failure placed residents 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 prevent the use of chemical restraints for 1 of 5 sampled residents (Resident 83) reviewed for unnecessary medications. This failure placed residents at risk of side-effects from the medications, unnecessary chemical restraints, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to identify and report an allegation of abuse for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident 31) when reviewed for abuse. This failure placed residents at risk for unidentified and repeated potential abuse, neglect and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide and/or maintain documented care conferences in a timely manner for 2 of 3 sampled residents (Residents 72 and 77) when reviewed for care planning. This failure placed residents at risk for unmet care needs and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure services provided met professional standards of practice by accurately documenting behavior monitoring for 1 of 3 residents (Resident 83) reviewed for dementia care. This failure placed residents/staff at risk of unmet care needs, unnecessary medications, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide prompt services to maintain vision for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident 23) when reviewed for communication/sensory. This failure placed the resident at risk of unmet vision needs, inability to perform activities of daily living, inability to participate in leisure activities and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents with limited range of motion received the necessary services to maintain their level of functioning and/or prevent decline for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident 31) when reviewed positioning/mobility. This failure placed the residents at risk for decreased range of motion (ROM), increased pain, and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to accurately assess and monitor pain for 2 of 4 residents (Residents 20 and 89) when reviewed for pain management. This failure placed the residents at risk for unidentified and unmanaged pain and a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents who experienced dementia-related behaviors received care and services to attain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being when it did not identify and implement person-centered, individualized interventions for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident 83) when reviewed for dementia care. This failure placed residents at risk of unmet care needs, unnecessary medications, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to post the scheduled and actual hours worked for the nursing staffing hours daily for 4 of 4 observed days during the survey period (05/05/2025-05/08/2025) when reviewed for nurse staff posting. This failure prevented the residents, family members, and visitors from exercising their rights to know the scheduled and actual numbers of available nursing staff in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to promptly resolve grievances for 1 of 5 sample residents (Resident 1) reviewed for grievances and missing property. The failure to thoroughly investigate a grievance and either resolve the resident grievance timely or provide an explanation if the grievance could not be resolved placed residents at risk for frustration and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure 1 of 3 sample residents (Resident 1) reviewed for Pressure Ulcers (PU - injury to the skin and underlying tissue due to prolonged pressure) received the necessary care and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to prevent new ulcers from developing, identify and treat PUs. Failure to implement wound prevention, interventions, and to report on worsening conditions, placed residents at risk for deteriorating PU, increased discomfort, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to evaluate the effectiveness of fall prevention interventions, need for additional action, and/or attempt to mitigate envionmental modifications preferred by the resident that presented a risk to safety for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident 1) reviewed for accidents and hazards. Resident 1 experienced harm when they fell out of bed and sustained a neck fracture. This failure placed residents at risk for falls, injury and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews and record review, the facility failed to protect a resident's right to be free from mental and verbal abuse for 1 of 3 sample residents (Resident 2) reviewed for resident to resident altercation. This failure placed residents at risk of verbal and mental abuse, psychosocial harm, and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure proper labeling of insulins in 1 of 4 medication carts (700-hall Medication Cart) reviewed for medication storage. This failure placed residents at risk for receiving expired medications, ineffective medications, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure foods were sanitarily stored in the kitchen and 3 of 4 resident refrigerators (Ocean, Mountain, and Narrows Dining) when reviewed for kitchen. These failures placed residents at risk of consuming contaminated foods, avoidable foodborne illness, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to have psychotropic (medications that affect a person's mental state) medication consents signed and in place prior to resident receiving medications for 3 of 5 sampled residents (Residents 40, 78 & 119) reviewed for psychotropic medication use. This failure placed the residents at risk for adverse side effects and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice for 5 of 25 sampled residents (Residents 107, 30, 42, 78, and 2) reviewed for quality of care. Failure to consistently monitor and document edema (swelling caused by too much fluid trapped in the body's tissues) for Resident 107 and 30, provide management of a surgical wound for Resident 42, ensure adequate positioning was provided for Resident 78, and notify the provider of an acute change in respiratory status for Resident 2 placed the residents at risk for worsening conditions, discomfort, and a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident environments were free from accident hazards for 3 of 6 sampled residents (Residents 121, 68, and 4) when reviewed for accident hazards. The facility failure to secured medications (Resident 121), investigate falls and implement fall precautions (Resident 68), and ensure bedrails were firmly installed (Resident 4) placed residents at risk of avoidable injury, hospitalization, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to offer, educate, and obtain consent for influenza and/or pneumococcal vaccines for 5 of 5 residents (Residents 74, 90, 102, 108, and 120) when reviewed for influenza and pneumococcal immunizations. These failures denied residents the opportunity to make an informed decision regarding receiving immunizations and/or placed the residents at risk for communicable diseases, complications of other medical conditions, hospitalization, and death.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to offer, educate, and obtain consent for Covid-19 vaccinations for 5 of 5 residents (Residents 74, 90, 102, 108, and 120) when reviewed for immunizations. This failure denied residents the opportunity to make an informed decision regarding receiving Covid-19 vaccines and/or placed the residents at risk for complications, hospitalization, and a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to maintain kitchen equipment in safe working order for a griddle/oven combo unit and 1 of 4 freestanding refrigerators when reviewed for kitchen. These failures places residents at risk of eating contaminated food, avoidable foodborne illness, fire injury, smoke inhalation, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to inspect bedrails as part of a regular maintenance program. This failure placed residents at risk of falling, entrapment, avoidable injury, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from physical restraints with the use of a mobility device for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident 78) when reviewed for physical restraints. This failure placed residents at risk for avoidable injury, psychological harm, and decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to accurately assess a pressure ulcer/skin condition for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident 7) reviewed for pressure injury. This failure placed the resident at risk for health complications and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure services provided met professional standards of practice for 3 of 4 sampled residents (Residents 2, 88 & 28) reviewed for anticoagulant (blood thinner medication) use and/or indwelling urinary catheter (IUC, a tube inserted in the body to empty the bladder of urine) care. The facility failed to ensure Resident 28 and 88's provider's orders for IUC were in place and/or accurate, and Resident 2's anticoagulant monitoring for side effects were documented. These failures placed residents at risk of medical complications, unmet needs, and a poor quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide necessary treatment to heal pressure injuries for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident 7) reviewed for pressure injuries. This failure placed the resident at risk for worsening pressure injury, infection, and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a fluid restriction for provided and monitored for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident 54) reviewed for nutrition. This failure placed the resident at risk of fluid overload, avoidable swelling, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure as needed (PRN) psychotropic medications (affecting the mind) were limited to 14 days for 1 of 5 sampled residents (Resident 6) when reviewed for unnecessary medications. This failure placed the residents at risk for receiving unnecessary psychotropic medication, avoidable medication side effects, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to maintain the alarm function of two of three emergency exits, open to the outside and leading off the facility property, (600 hall and 700 hall) reviewed for safety/accident prevention. This failure placed cognitively impaired residents, residents who wander and have exit-seeking behaviors, at risk for being able to leave the facility unnoticed by staff, placing their safety at risk.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement an infection control and prevention program that ensured that staff were fit tested (a process for determining whether a respirator properly fits the face of the person who wears it) for N-95 respirators (a type of disposable face mask that forms a tight seal to the face and is able to filter out airborn particles and pathogens [bacteria, virus, or other microorganism that can cause disease]) upon hire, and annually thereafter, for six of six staff (Staff D, G, H, I, J, and K) reviewed for N-95 respirator fit testing. In addition, these staff were working with residents during a COVID-19 (contagious respiratory disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus) outbreak in the facility. This failure placed residents and staff at risk for exposure to, and spread of, communicable diseases such as COVID-19.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews, facility failed to ensure a resident-to-resident altercation was identified and investigated for 1 of 4 residents (Resident 1) reviewed for abuse allegations. Failure to identify and thoroughly investigate an abuse allegation placed residents at risk for recurrence of alleged abuse and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the kitchen was maintained and operated in a sanitary manner to prevent the potential spread of foodborne illness to all 130 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure sanitizer solutions were at the proper concentration, tray line temperatures were within safe ranges, dishes were clean, hair coverings were worn, foods were labeled, and environmental surfaces were free of excessive grime, crumbs, and black substance.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, document review, interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure proper infection control in the following areas: proper infection control practices with residents on transmission-based precautions (TBP) for COVID and the timely notification of the health department of the COVID outbreak; providing diagrams for the water flow in the facility and testing waterborne pathogens; transporting uncovered clean clothing throughout the facility. These deficient practices had the potential to affect all 130 residents and to allow exposure to non-COVID residents to COVID, waterborne pathogens and their clothing to dust and germs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that an establish advanced directive (AD) was enacted as directed for 1 of 5 residents (Resident 19) reviewed for AD. This failure denied the resident the opportunity to direct their healthcare during an event when they were unable to make decisions or communicate their healthcare preferences.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to notify one of 31 sampled residents (Resident (R)109) physician and family member of an injury sustained to R109's toe first discovered on 06/20/23. This resulted in a delay for a referral to the podiatrist.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure resident equipment was maintained and in good repair for four (Resident (R)11, R51, R69, and R100) of 31 sampled residents. The resident's wheelchair arms had cracked or missing protective material exposing the cloth like material. This deficient practice had the potential to allow residents with frail skin to receive soars or prevent the wheelchairs from being thoroughly clean, increasing risk of infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to refer one (Resident (R) 70) of one resident reviewed for Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) residents for a Level II, with a qualifying diagnosis of mental illness in the sample of 31. This had the potential to cause R70 to not receive necessary mental health services.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and policy review, the facility failed to ensure one out of one resident reviewed for non-pressure skin conditions (Resident (R)109) received adequate nursing care and services to address an injury to her toe. Specifically, the facility failed to complete an initial investigation in accordance with facility policy (Incident Report), initiate subsequent monitoring and documentation (alert charting), and determine if interventions were needed to protect the injured area and to prevent re-injury.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the use of an indwelling urinary catheter (a tube which drains urine from the bladder into a collection bag) had the catheter bag attached as ordered by the provider and a privacy bag for 1 of 1 resident (Resident 173) reviewed for urinary catheters. This failure placed the residents at risk for further complications, prolonged therapy, and unmet care needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that narcotics storage refrigerators were secured for 1 of 3 medication storage rooms (Ocean) and medication storage rooms were secured for 1 of 3 medication rooms (Alpine) when reviewed for medication storage. In addition, the facility failed to ensure a bottle of Virex (a germicidal / disinfectant cleaning material) was separately stored for 1 of 3 medication storage rooms (Mountain) and that personal staff hydration was not stored within a facility's medication cart (700 Hall). These failures placed residents at risk to have unintended access to drugs and biologicals that should have been locked, an increased risk of drug diversion, and potential drug misuse.
72 fire safety citations on file: 33 on May 9, 2025, 20 on June 5, 2024, 19 on August 17, 2023.
CMS lists no fines or payment denials against this home in the last three years. The national average is 0.9 fines per home.
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) | 4.33 | 4.36 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.67 | 0.94 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.90 | 3.80 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.72 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.93 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 43.2% | 45.1% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 60.0% | 45.4% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 4.74 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 4.50 on weekdays and 3.90 on weekends, 13% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.1% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 4.47 in April to June 2025 to 4.33 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 | 4.33 | 0.67 | 4.50 | 3.90 | 0.1% | 0 of 90 | 125 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 4.52 | 0.69 | 4.71 | 4.06 | 5.2% | 0 of 92 | 124 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 4.47 | 0.64 | 4.66 | 4.01 | 7.2% | 0 of 92 | 126 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 4.47 | 0.63 | 4.63 | 4.06 | 7.5% | 0 of 91 | 126 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Washington, Jan to Mar 2026 | 4.21 | 0.90 | 4.44 | 3.66 | 3.7% | 0.1% of days |
Hours per resident per day: staff hours in the quarter divided by resident days (the daily census CMS derives from resident assessments). Registered nurses include the director of nursing and RNs with administrative duties; aides include nurse aides in training and medication aides, as in CMS's own staffing measure. How these are calculated.
Staff pay reports
No staff pay figure for this home has passed review yet. A figure appears only after at least 5 reports from at least 3 different people, sent over at least 60 days, have passed review.
| Job | Median | Middle half | Employed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Washington, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $23.65 | $22.59 to $27.85 | 30,270 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $39.98 | $36.98 to $45.18 | 6,780 |
| Registered nurses | $59.71 | $49.57 to $64.54 | 69,260 |
| United States, nursing care facilities | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $20.67 | $17.91 to $22.55 | 534,270 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $33.86 | $30.05 to $37.40 | 188,210 |
| Registered nurses | $41.11 | $37.85 to $47.68 | 142,270 |
Hourly wages; the middle half runs from the 25th to the 75th percentile. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, May 2025. BLS has no separate estimate for medication aides. These are survey estimates for whole occupations, not figures for any one home.
The measures CMS uses for the quality star. Lower is better for every one of them.
| Measure | This home | Washington | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 13.0 | 14.2 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.2 | 1.0 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.3 | 1.6 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.3 | 2.6 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 1.3 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.5 | 17.2 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.4 | 4.3 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 18.0 | 15.1 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 21.7 | 19.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 15.2 | 13.4 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.4 | 1.3 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.4 | 1.5 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Eliseo's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it better than the national rate (56.5% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
56.5% 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. 562 eligible stays.
7.9% 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. 540 eligible stays.
5.3% 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. 289 eligible stays.
73.0% this home
Median of homes: Washington61.4% · US 56.6%
Percentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 233 residents counted.
0.7% 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. 275 residents counted.
1.2% 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. 275 residents counted.
98.3% 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. 179 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: ELISEO.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Macduff, Brian | Corporate director | Individual | 05/15/2023 | |
| McFeely, Kevin | Corporate director | Individual | 01/29/2017 | |
| Futura Age | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 12/15/2023 | |
| McFeely, Kevin | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/29/2017 | |
| Futura Age | Trustee of the SNF | Organization | 12/15/2023 | |
| McFeely, Kevin | Trustee of the SNF | Individual | 01/29/2017 | |
| Futura Age | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 06/25/2025 | |
| Macduff, Brian | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 05/15/2023 |
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.