Home / Washington / Everett
1919 112th Street Southwest, Everett, WA 98204 · Snohomish County · (425) 513-1600
100 certified beds, about 78 residents a day · For profit - Partnership · Medicare and Medicaid since 1995
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 505491 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on February 24, 2026, inspectors cited 4 health deficiencies (the Washington average is 15.8, the national average 9.2).
Of 34 health citations since September 2023, 2 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (2 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 2 fines totaling $378,252 in the last three years; the largest was $229,876, and the latest is dated December 29, 2023.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 4.23 hours per resident per day, against 4.36 across Washington and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 1.16 of those hours.
44.6% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Washington average 45.1%).
CMS links it to Genesis Healthcare, an affiliated group of 184 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 34 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure resolution of grievances for 2 of 3 residents (Residents 87 and 46) and 1 of 1 resident group reviewed for grievances. Failure to thoroughly investigate, log and provide resolution related to individual and resident group grievances placed residents at risk for recurrent unresolved concerns and decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents' care plans were revised and accurately reflected the resident's care needs for 3 out of 18 sampled residents (Residents 8, 9 and 38) when reviewed for care planning and revision of care plans. This failure placed the residents at risk for unmet care needs, medical complications, inaccurate care plan documentation, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents received assistance for activities of daily living for 1 of 3 residents (Resident 9) reviewed for activities of daily living. Failure to provide Resident 9 assistance with ambulation per the resident's preferences and therapy recommendations, placed them and other residents at risk for decline in function and decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 2 residents (Resident 16) reviewed for activities had an accurate assessment of recreational care needs and received an ongoing program of activities to meet the individual resident's physical and mental needs. Based on the reasonable person concept, not having adequate recreation and/or sensory stimulation placed the resident at risk for social isolation, lack of stimulation and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide written bed hold notice to residents at the time of transfer to the hospital for 3 of 4 sampled residents (Residents 2, 11, 45) reviewed for hospitalization. This failure placed residents at risk for lacking knowledge regarding their right to hold their bed while in the hospital and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure proper storage and labeling of insulin (injectable medication that regulates blood sugar) in 3 of 5 medication carts (Carts 3, 5, and 4) when reviewed for medication storage. This failure placed residents at risk of receiving expired medications, ineffective treatment, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, record reviews, and observations the facility failed to maintain accurate and complete medical records and ensure the medical record contained the required information for 1 of 4 residents (Resident 1) reviewed for restorative services, and 1 of 3 residents (Resident 45) reviewed for change of conditions. These failures placed residents at risk for delay in care, unmet care needs, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure call lights (an alerting device for staff to assist residents in need) were within reach for 1 of 1 resident (Resident 4), reviewed for accommodation of needs. This failure placed residents at risk for delayed care, potential avoidable accidents, and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that care planned interventions for fall management were in place for 1 of 2 residents (Resident 5) reviewed for falls. This failure placed resident at an increased risk of injury if a fall occurred.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to conduct thorough investigations for 4 of 8 residents (Residents 58, 71, 73 and 78) whose investigations were reviewed for thorough investigations. The failure to conduct thorough investigations placed residents at risk for repeat incidents, injury, and for unmet care needs due to a lack of thorough investigations after incident occurred, and there was a failure to preserve evidence necessary for thorough investigations. These failures placed residents at risk for repeat incidents and injury.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI), an assessment of a resident's needs, strengths, goals, and preferences, were completed within the required timeframes and/or included thorough summaries of the Care Area Assessments (CAA's), an assessment of a specific resident care or medical issue, to holistically analyze the plan of care for nine of sixteen residents (Residents 13, 58, 66, 67, 71, 73, 78, 80, and 334) reviewed for comprehensive assessments. This failure placed the residents at risk of not having appropriate services provided based on the resident's individualized needs and placed all other residents at risk of their needs and preferences not met.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to act on the consultant pharmacist's monthly medication regimen review (MRR) recommendations in a timely manner for 1of 5 residents (Resident 13) reviewed for unnecessary medications and 1 of 6 months (November) reviewed for timely completion. Failure to act timely on the pharmacist's recommendations placed all residents at risk for experiencing adverse side effects, medical complications, and a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure drugs and biologicals were removed when expired in 3 of 5 medication carts. The facility failed to monitor daily temperatures for 2 of 3 refrigerators that stored medications. The facility failed to ensure Schedule II-V (Substances with a high potential for abuse which may lead to severe physical or psychological dependence) controlled medications were in a separate locked permanently affixed compartment not accessible to others. The facility failed to ensure 1 of 1 resident (Resident 78) was assessed for self-medication program. These failures placed residents at risk for receiving expired medications and vaccines, and potential for drug diversion from not securely locking controlled medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure a system in which residents' records were complete, accurate, accessible, and systematically organized for 4 of 5 residents (Residents 40, 52, 71 and 78) reviewed for unnecessary medication. This failure included incomplete assessments, restorative care and incomplete documentation involving resident incidents. This placed residents at risk for unmet needs, condition deterioration, unrecognized changes in condition and adverse outcomes.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a dignified existence was maintained for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident 58) reviewed for resident rights. The facility failed to ensure Resident 58's dignity, based on reasonable person as their roommate (Resident 29) watched and listened to pornography video (sexually explicit) on their laptop that could be overheard in the hallway. This failure placed all residents at risk for a diminished self-worth and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure call lights (an alerting device for staff to assist residents in need) were within reach for 3 of 4 residents (Residents 47, 71 and 78), reviewed for accommodation of needs. This failure placed the residents at risk for delayed care, accidents/falls, anxiety and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wrote<Resident 74> Resident 74 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include mild cognitive impairment and bipolar disorder (a mental health condition that causes extreme mood swings). Review of Resident 74's Level 1 PASRR, dated 1/15/2025, showed the resident had a diagnosis of bipolar disorder (a mood disorder). Sections IIA, IIB, and III were blank, and the PASRR was not signed by a physician as required for hospital exemption. Section IV was marked; No Level II evaluation indicated at this time due to exempted hospital discharge: Level II must be completed if scheduled discharge does not occur. A review of Resident 74's records on 3/12/2025 at 1:02 PM showed there was no referral for Level II PASRR, and the resident had admitted on [DATE], 38 days prior. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure professional standards were met for 1 of 3 nurses (Staff G) observed for medication administration and 1 of 5 residents (Resident 334) reviewed for blood pressure parameters prior to medication administration. This failure place residents at risk for adverse effects, complications and potential for drug diversion.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the resident was assisted by staff with activities as outlined in the care plan for 1 of 4 residents (Resident 43) reviewed for activities. This failed practice placed the resident at risk for isolation and decreased opportunities for a meaningful life in their areas of wellness. <Resident 43> Resident 43 was a long-term resident of the facility. According to the Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE], showed the resident was severely cognitively impaired and requires extensive assistance with daily activities. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to accurately assess and ensure 1 of 1 resident (Resident 28) received the necessary care and services in accordance with professional standards of practice and maintained the highest practicable level of well-being. Failure to ensure that Resident 28 received services related to a midline IV (an 8-12 cm catheter inserted in the upper arm with the tip located just below the armpit) was adequately managed potentially placed Resident 28 at risk for infection and unmet care needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide medically related social services to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental and psychosocial well-being for 1 of 4 residents (Resident 284) reviewed for medically related social services. The Social Worker (SW) was out for an extended absence; a plan was not implemented to ensure continuous social service coverage. Failure to ensure residents were informed of their care, treatment, and services available to them and continuously monitor and thoroughly assess and advocate for residents' rights, placed resident at risk for harm, diminished quality of life and unmet care needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 4 residents (Resident 71) were free from unnecessary psychotropic medications (drugs that affect brain activities associated with mental processes and behavior) as required. The facility failed to ensure person-centered behavioral interventions were in place, appropriate indications were present for psychotropic medications and that consents were obtained prior to administration of psychotropic medications. These failures placed the residents at risk for medication-related complications and for receiving unnecessary psychotropic medication.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview the facility failed to replace sharps containers (a specialized, puncture-resistant, and leak-proof container designed for the safe disposal of sharp medical instruments, like needles, syringes, and scalpels, to prevent accidental injuries and ensure proper waste handling) in 1 of 5 medication carts, 1 of 2 shower rooms, and 1 resident room at Station 2 when it reached the full line when the environment was reviewed for safe and comfortable environment. This failure placed residents and staff at risk for injury, and potential exposure to diseases.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to immediately report to the state agency potential abuse and/or neglect for 3 of 5 residents (Residents 19, 61, and 62) reviewed for allegations of abuse and/or neglect. Failure to immediately report alleged abuse and/or neglect placed residents at risk for potential unidentified mistreatment and a poor quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to promptly resolve grievances for 1 of 1 sampled residents (Resident #1) reviewed for missing property. The facility failed to replace the resident's missing electrolarynx (device that produces voice electronically) timely, and when the missing property was replaced, the replacement item was not given to the resident for four days. Failure to timely replace missing property placed residents at risk for a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure 3 of 4 residents (Residents 1, 2, and 3) reviewed for admission/readmission process remained free of significant medication errors. Failure to accurately review and transcribe admission orders for 2 of 4 residents (Residents 1 and 2) and failure to provide medications within physician prescribed medication parameters for 2 of 4 residents (Residents 2 and, 3). Resident 1's admission medication orders were not reconciled with the hospital discharge documents which resulted in the resident receiving two medications erroneously, including a blood thinner that had been listed as an allergy (with a note in the transfer order to NEVER go on a blood thinner again), which caused gastro-intestinal (GI) bleeding twice before; [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure Licensed Nurses (LN) and Nursing Assistants Certified (NAC) had annual evaluations, appropriate skills sets and proficiencies to provide nursing and related services for each resident in accordance with the facility assessment when nursing staff failed to demonstrate the knowledge, skills and abilities to perform nursing services for 4 of 7 sampled staff (Staff C, E, F and H) reviewed for competent nursing staff. This failure placed residents at risk for unmet care needs and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure 2 of 5 employees, (Staff E and Staff F) reviewed for training, had the required 12 hours per year of in-services and required annual dementia training. This failure placed residents at risk of less than competent care and services from staff.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure sufficient nursing staff were available to respond to call lights timely and to meet the toileting, bathing, and repositioning needs for 5 of 6 sampled residents (Residents 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) reviewed for sufficient nursing staff. This failure resulted in feelings of frustration and vulnerability, diminished quality of life and unmet care needs of the residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain medical records that were complete and accurate for 12 of 12 sampled residents (Residents 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18) reviewed for late and/or missed medications. The failure to complete documentation of medication administration at the time they were administered had the potential for clinical decisions to be made on inaccurate information.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide sufficient qualified staff to provide care and services for 46 of 46 residents (Residents 2, 4, 5, 7, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 23, 24, 27, 28, 30, 31, 33, 35, 36, 39, 40,43, 45, 47, 51, 52, 54, 55,56, 57, 58, 64,65, 66, 68, 124, 275, 276, 278, 374, 375, 376 , and 1 anonymous resident and 6 of 6 family members (for Resident 10, 53, 55, 73, and 276, and 1 anonymous) that had concerns related to staffing on 2 of 2 units (Unit 1 and 2) reviewed for sufficient staffing. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement their Abuse Prohibition policy for 3 of 5 residents (276, 71, and 39) reviewed for incidents and by not ensuring reference checks were conducted prior to hire for four of five employees (Staff O, P, Y and KK ) reviewed for reference checks. Facility staff failed to log and report allegations, to investigate allegations staff had knowledge of and to conduct thorough and timely investigations These failures placed residents at risk for abuse, neglect, unmet care needs, mistreatment by staff and a diminished quality of life. Resident 71's investigation for an unexpected death was non-existent (did not occur).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to conduct thorough investigations for 30 of 30 residents (10, 12, 2, 56, 57, 44, 51, 45, 64, 36, 278, 68, 5, 276, 52, 66, 31, 13, 54, 27, 15, 275, 30, 376, 20, 47, 124, 28, 7, 43) whose investigations were reviewed for thorough investigations. The failure to conduct thorough investigations placed residents at risk for repeat incidents, injury, and for unmet care needs due to a lack of thorough investigations after incident occurred, and there was a failure to preserve evidence necessary for thorough investigations. These failures placed residents at risk for repeat incidents and injury.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure there was adequate supervision for 3 of 3 residents (Resident 10, 12 and 13) reviewed for falls with injury, and failed to ensure call lights were within reach for 7 of 7 residents (Resident 32, 56, 124, 375, 54, 27, and 39) reviewed after their call lights were observed not within their reach for dependent residents. The failure to provide adequate supervision need to ensure the environment is free of environmental hazards placed residents at risk for injuries and unmet care needs.
11 fire safety citations on file: 2 on February 24, 2026, 2 on August 29, 2025, 7 on March 17, 2025.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| December 29, 2023 | Fine | $148,376 |
| September 20, 2023 | Fine | $229,876 |
| September 20, 2023 | Payment Denial | 35 days from October 19, 2023 |
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) | 4.23 | 4.36 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 1.16 | 0.94 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.78 | 3.80 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.40 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.67 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 44.6% | 45.1% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 60.0% | 45.4% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 6.40 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 4.41 on weekdays and 3.78 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 4.10 in April to June 2025 to 4.23 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 | 4.23 | 1.16 | 4.41 | 3.78 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 78 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 4.25 | 1.16 | 4.47 | 3.68 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 81 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 4.13 | 0.98 | 4.28 | 3.75 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 81 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 4.10 | 0.99 | 4.23 | 3.76 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 83 |
| 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 | 13.9 | 14.2 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.6 | 1.0 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.0 | 1.6 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.3 | 2.6 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.7 | 1.3 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 18.1 | 17.2 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 9.9 | 4.3 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.8 | 15.1 | 15.4 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Everett Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it better than the national rate (68.3% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
68.3% 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. 31 eligible stays.
9.8% 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. 29 eligible stays.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
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. 17 eligible stays.
57.1% 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. 21 residents counted.
0.0% this home
Median of homes: Washington0.0% · US 0.0%
Percentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay. Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 37 residents counted.
2.3% 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. 37 residents counted.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Median of homes: Washington98.3% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 9 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: SUNBRIDGE NURSING HOME LLC. CMS links this home to Genesis Healthcare, a group of 184 nursing homes averaging 2.3 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fc-Gen Operations Investment LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 12/01/2012 | |
| Gen Operations I LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 12/01/2012 | |
| Gen Operations II LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 12/01/2012 | |
| Genesis Healthcare Inc. (publicly Traded) | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 02/02/2015 | |
| Genesis Healthcare LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 12/01/2012 | |
| Genesis Holdings LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 02/02/2015 | |
| Sun Healthcare Group Inc | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 12/01/2012 | |
| Whitman, Arnold | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 02/02/2015 | |
| Berg, Michael | Corporate officer | Individual | 12/01/2012 | |
| Bridgeford, Laura | Corporate officer | Individual | 04/01/2024 | |
| Mendelson, Avi | Corporate officer | Individual | 04/01/2024 | |
| Challagolla, Udaychowdary | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/04/2024 | |
| Challagolla, Udaychowdary | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/04/2024 |
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.