Home / Washington / Kirkland
10101 Northeast 120th Street, Kirkland, WA 98034 · King County · (425) 823-2323
190 certified beds, about 87 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1989
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 505334 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on November 26, 2025, inspectors cited 14 health deficiencies (the Washington average is 15.8, the national average 9.2).
Of 62 health citations since May 2023, 3 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists 2 fines totaling $53,560 in the last three years; the largest was $38,610, and the latest is dated August 29, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.87 hours per resident per day, against 4.36 across Washington and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 1.05 of those hours.
50.5% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Washington average 45.1%).
CMS links it to Life Care Centers of America, an affiliated group of 194 nursing homes.
Federal rules call for a standard inspection at least every 15 months, plus a visit whenever a complaint is filed. Each mark below is one citation, colored by how serious inspectors rated it. How to read a citation.
Under each citation, the quoted text is the inspector's own summary from the federal statement of deficiencies (CMS form 2567), word for word apart from a privacy scrub; CMS removes residents' and staff names before it publishes the text. The full notes are on Medicare.gov.
CMS rates every citation by how much harm it caused (rows) and how many residents it touched (columns). The count in each box is this home's, across all 62 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to complete timely and comprehensive vital-sign assessments (measurements of the body's most basic functions), specifically blood-glucose (sugar) level and temperature, for 2 of 3 residents (Residents 1 & 2) during changes in condition, reviewed for quality of care. This failure placed the residents at risk for unrecognized medical complications, unmet care needs and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure an allegation of neglect was reported to the State Agency within the required timeframe for 1 of 4 residents (Resident 1), reviewed for abuse reporting. This failure placed the resident at risk for potential unidentified neglect and lack of protection from neglect.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards for food safety when expired food items were not discarded for 1 of 1 dry storage room (Kitchen Dry Storage Room), reviewed for food services. In addition, the facility failed to ensure expired paper tests strips (designed to check the level of chlorine [a chemical that kills germs] in the water used to sanitize the dishware during the dishwasher rinsing phase) were discarded. These failures placed the residents at risk for foodborne illness (caused by the ingestion of contaminated food or beverages).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the posted daily nurse staffing information included the actual hours worked by registered and licensed nursing staff directly responsible for resident care per shift for 4 of 7 days, reviewed for posted nurse staffing information. The failure to post a complete and accurate form daily prevented the residents, family members, and visitors from exercising their rights to know the actual nursing staff hours worked in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure expired medications were discarded for 2 of 3 medication carts (Cascade Medication Cart & Olympic Medication Cart), and for 1 of 2 medication rooms (Central Supply Room), reviewed for medication storage and labeling. This failure placed the residents at risk for receiving compromised and ineffective medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure proper transport of clean linens was followed for 1 of 1 staff (Staff U), reviewed for infection control. In addition, the facility failed to ensure hand hygiene practices and/or proper use of gloves were followed during medication administration for 2 of 4 staff (Staff O & Staff N). These failures placed the residents, visitors, and staff at risk for infection and related complications.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement an Antibiotic Stewardship Program (a coordinated effort to optimize the use of antibiotics [medicine that prevents or treats infection] to ensure their appropriate and necessary use) for 1 of 2 residents (Resident 51), reviewed for antibiotic stewardship. The failure to conduct assessment to confirm presence of an infection prior to initiation of antibiotic placed the resident at risk for receiving unnecessary medication and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a copy of the advance directive (a written document describing a resident's wishes for care if they became incapacitated such as a living will or Durable Power of Attorney [DPOA- a document delegating to an agent the authority to make health care decisions in case the individual delegating the authority subsequently becomes incapable to do so]) for health care was obtained for 1 of 1 resident (Resident 21), reviewed for advance directive. This failure placed the resident at risk for losing their right to have their preferences honored regarding care.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide the required Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notice (SNF ABN-a written notice that informs a Medicare [government health insurance program] that a service may not be covered and that resident may be responsible for the cost if they remained in the facility after their Medicare Part A skilled nursing and rehabilitation services ended) for 2 of 3 residents (Residents 104 & 105), reviewed for liability notices. This failure placed the residents and/or their representatives at risk of not having adequate information to make financial decisions related to continued stay in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide bed hold and transfer notices to the residents and/or their representatives in writing for 2 of 2 residents (Residents 69 & 94), reviewed for hospitalization. In addition, the facility failed to ensure a copy of the transfer notice was sent timely to the State Long Term Care Ombudsman (an advocate for residents of nursing homes who protect and promote resident rights under federal and state law and regulations) office describing the reason for the transfer and/or the location. These failures placed the residents at risk of not having an opportunity to make an informed decision about their transfers.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to accurately assess 1 of 21 residents (Resident 5), reviewed for Minimum Data Set (MDS-an assessment tool). The failure to ensure resident assessment was completed accurately on the MDS regarding medications placed the resident at risk for unidentified and/or unmet care needs, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to include the dialysis (a treatment to remove extra fluid and waste when kidneys fail) days, transportation arrangement and contact information of the dialysis center in the comprehensive care plan for 1 of 1 resident (Resident 31), reviewed for dialysis. This failure placed the resident at risk for unmet care needs and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure safety hazards such as a lighter and a box cutter were properly stored for 1 of 2 residents (Resident 13), reviewed for accident hazards. This failure placed the resident at risk for injury, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to initiate non-pharmacological interventions for pain management prior to administering as needed (PRN) pain medication for 1 of 1 resident (Resident 21), reviewed for pain management. This failure placed the resident at risk for unnecessary medications and incomplete pain control.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure controlled medications were accurately reconciled for 1 of 3 medication carts (Olympic Medication Cart), reviewed for controlled medication storage/reconciliation. This failure placed the facility at risk for potential loss and/or drug diversion of the controlled medication.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure influenza vaccine (used to prevent influenza [an infection of the nose, throat, and lungs]) were offered for 2 of 5 residents (Residents 6 & 10), reviewed for immunizations. This failure placed the residents at risk of acquiring, transmitting, and/or experiencing potentially avoidable complications from influenza disease.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to accurately assess, provide timely treatment, and implement pressure relieving interventions to prevent worsening of skin condition for 1 of 3 residents (Resident 1), reviewed for pressure injury (localized damage to the skin and/or underlying tissue that occurs due to prolonged pressure on the skin). [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to conduct a thorough investigation for 1 of 3 residents (Resident 3), reviewed for abuse investigations. This failure placed the resident at risk for repeated incidents, unidentified abuse, and inappropriate corrective actions.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure hand hygiene practices and/or proper use of personal protective equipment (PPE-glove/gown use) were followed for 2 of 3 residents (Residents 1 & 2), reviewed for infection control. These failures placed the residents, visitors, and staff at an increased risk for infection and related complications.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a written summary of the baseline care plan to the residents and/or their representatives for 4 of 4 residents (Residents 1, 2, 3 & 4), reviewed for baseline care plan. This failure placed the 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 staff used N95 masks (a device designed to protect the wearer against particles and help prevent the spread of germs) correctly for 4 of 4 staff (Staff G, F, E & H), and were fit-tested (a test protocol conducted to verify that a respirator provides the wearer with the expected protection) timely for 2 of 4 staff (Staff F & G), reviewed for infection control. In addition, the facility failed to ensure Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP- precaution to protect residents from Multidrug-Resistant Organism (a germ that is resistant to medications that treat infections) practices were followed for 1 of 3 residents (Resident 2), reviewed for infection control. These failures placed the residents, staff, and visitors at risk for facility acquired or healthcare-associated infections and related complications.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide necessary assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADL) for 1 of 4 residents (Resident 1), reviewed for ADLs. The failure to provide the resident who was dependent on staff for assistance with toileting placed the resident at risk for unmet care needs and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident centered discharge plan was in place for 1 of 5 residents (Resident 1), reviewed for discharge planning. The failure to begin the discharge planning process at admission placed the resident at risk for unmet care needs and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure timely reporting of an allegation of neglect to the State Agency for 1 of 3 resident (Resident 1), reviewed for abuse/neglect reporting. This failure placed the resident at risk for potential unidentified and ongoing abuse/neglect and lack of protection from abuse/neglect.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure allegation of neglect was thoroughly investigated for 1 of 3 resident (Resident 1), reviewed for abuse/neglect investigations. This failure placed the resident at risk for unidentified abuse and/or neglect, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to provide necessary/adequate supervision for 1 of 1 resident (Resident 1), reviewed for elopement. This failure allowed Resident 1 to exit the facility unnoticed and placed the resident at risk for serious injury and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop comprehensive care plans for 5 of 21 residents (Residents 9, 65, 68, 3 and 54), reviewed for care plans. The failure to develop care plans for nutrition, pressure ulcer (bed sore), Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP - a therapy that pumps air into the lungs through the nose or nose and mouth that keeps the airway open), antiplatelet (a medications that prevent blood clots), communication, and oxygen placed the residents at risk for unmet care needs, related complications, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to appropriately label and store drugs and/or biologicals for 2 of 2 medication carts (Cascade medication cart & [NAME] medication cart), reviewed for medication storage. This failure placed the residents at risk for receiving compromised, incorrect, and/or ineffective medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure foods were handled appropriately in accordance with professional standards of food safety for 1 of 1 kitchen, and for 1 of 1 dining room (Baker Dining Room), reviewed for food services. The failure to label and date food items, perform hand hygiene between glove use, and use appropriate food handling when assisting residents placed the residents at risk for food borne illness (caused by the ingestion of contaminated food or beverages), cross contamination, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a call light (an alerting device for staff to assist residents in need) was within reach for 1 of 6 residents (Resident 3), reviewed for accommodation of needs. This failure placed the resident at risk for delayed care, accidents/falls, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to report suspected allegations of abuse and/or neglect to the State Agency for 1 of 4 residents (Resident 75), reviewed for abuse/neglect reporting. This failure placed the residents at risk for potential unidentified and ongoing abuse/neglect and lack of protection from abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure allegations of abuse and/or neglect was thoroughly investigated for 1 of 4 residents (Residents 75), reviewed for abuse/neglect investigations. This failure placed the resident at risk for unidentified abuse and/or neglect, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a written transfer/discharge notice to the resident and/or their representative describing the reason for transfer for 1 of 1 resident (Resident 65), reviewed for hospitalization. This failure placed the resident at risk of not having the opportunity to make informed decisions about transfers/discharges.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a Significant Change in Status Assessment (SCSA) Minimum Data Set (MDS - an assessment tool) was completed for 1 of 3 residents (Resident 9), reviewed for SCSA. This failure placed the resident at risk for delayed care planning, unmet care needs, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to complete quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS- an assessment tool) timely within 14 days from the Assessment Reference Date (ARD or assessment period) for 1 of 7 residents (Resident 32), reviewed for Resident Assessments. This failure placed the resident at risk for delayed and/or unidentified care needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to accurately assess 4 of 21 residents (Residents 11, 3, 95 & 8), reviewed for Minimum Data Set (MDS-an assessment tool). The failure to ensure accurate assessments regarding change in behavior, bladder/bowel continence status, discharge status, and use of insulin (medication/hormone that regulates blood sugar levels) injections placed the residents at risk for unidentified and/or unmet care needs, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Level I Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR- an assessment used to identify people [resident] referred to nursing facilities with Serious Mental Illness [SMI], intellectual disabilities, or related conditions are not inappropriately placed in nursing facility for long term care) had the required referral for PASRR Level II evaluation (a comprehensive evaluation required as a result of a positive Level I screening. A Level II is necessary to confirm the indicated diagnosis noted in the Level I screening and to determine whether placement or continued stay in a nursing facility is appropriate) for 1 of 5 residents (Resident 11), reviewed for PASRR. In addition, the facility failed to ensure a new PASRR Level I was completed when Resident 11 had a significant change in condition. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to clarify a physician's order for 1 of 4 residents (Resident 55) and failed to ensure staff documented medications in accordance with professional standards for 1 of 4 residents (Resident 2), reviewed for medication administration. In addition, the facility failed to ensure insulin (a hormone that regulates blood sugar level) administration was documented for 1 of 3 residents (Resident 3), reviewed for insulin administration. These failures placed the residents at risk for medication errors, negative outcomes, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure bathing/shower and personal hygiene were consistently provided according to plan of care for 1 of 4 residents (Resident 9), reviewed for Activities of Daily Living (ADL). This failure placed the resident at risk for poor hygiene, decreased self-esteem, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure appropriate treatment and services related to enteral tube feeding (a medical device used to provide nutrients through a tube directly into the stomach) were followed for 1 of 1 resident (Resident 55), reviewed for tube feeding management. The failure to label/date and discard tube feeding syringes placed the resident at risk for infection and related complications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide the necessary behavioral care and services for 1 of 1 resident (Resident 11), reviewed for behavioral health services. This failure placed the resident 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 a medication error rate of less than 5 Percent (%). The failure to properly administer 2 of 31 medications for 2 of 4 residents (Residents 2 & 55), observed during medication pass resulted in a medication error rate of 6.45%. This failure placed the residents at risk for not receiving the correct dose or receiving less than the intended therapeutic effects of physician ordered medication.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP - precaution to protect residents from multidrug-resistant organism [a germ that is resistant to medications that treat infections]) practices were followed for 1 of 7 residents (Resident 55), reviewed for infection control. In addition, the facility failed to ensure hand hygiene practices and/or proper use of gloves were followed before, during, and after resident care and medication administration for 2 of 12 staff (Staff EE & Staff M), reviewed for infection control. These failures placed the residents, visitors, and staff at an increased risk for infection and related complications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide care and services in a manner that maintained and promoted residents' dignity related to use of urinary catheter (a flexible tube inserted into the bladder, which drains urine into a collection/drainage bag outside the body) for 3 of 4 residents (Residents 4, 5 & 6), reviewed for resident rights. This failure placed the residents at risk for embarrassment, decreased self-worth, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure allegation of abuse was reported to the State Agency and/or law enforcement for 1 of 3 residents (Resident 1), reviewed for abuse allegations. This failure placed the resident at risk for potential unidentified abuse and lack of protection from abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure allegation of abuse was thoroughly investigated for 1 of 3 residents (Resident 1), reviewed for abuse investigations. This failure placed the resident at risk for repeated incidents, unidentified abuse, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents received skin care and treatments in accordance with professional standards of practice for 3 of 4 residents (Residents 1, 2 & 3), reviewed for skin conditions. This failure placed the residents at risk for not receiving the necessary skin care treatment, unmet care needs, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure urinary catheters (a flexible tube inserted into the bladder, which drains urine into a collection/drainage bag outside the body) were positioned off the floor for 2 of 4 residents (Resident 1 & 2), reviewed for urinary catheter use. This failure placed the residents at risk for urinary tract/bladder infections and related complications.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to designate a qualified staff person to serve as an Infection Preventionist (IP) to oversee the facility's infection prevention and control program. This failure placed the residents, staff, and visitors at risk for contracting COVID-19 (an infectious disease-causing respiratory illness) during a facility outbreak, unmet infection control issues, and lack of oversite of infection control practices.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure hand hygiene practices were followed for 1 of 3 staff (Staff E), failed to appropriately disinfect medical equipment for 1of 2 staff (Staff E), and failed to do proper use and disinfection/disposal of personal protective equipment (PPE-gown, gloves, face shield, N95 respirators [a device/mask designed to protect the wearer against particles and help prevent the spread of germs]) for 2 of 7 staff (Staff E & F), reviewed for infection control. In addition, the facility failed to ensure staff were fit tested (a test protocol conducted to verify that a respirator provides the wearer with the expected protection) for N95 masks for 13 of 18 staff (Staff E, F, D, G, J, K, L, M, N, O, H, I & P), reviewed for transmission based precautions (measures to prevent the spread of infection). [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide adequate nutritional care and services including assessments and interventions to address significant weight loss for 1 of 3 residents (Resident 1), reviewed for nutrition/hydration. This failure placed the resident at risk for decline in nutritional status, nutrition related complications, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide necessary care and services timely to treat and prevent further skin breakdown from a pressure ulcer/pressure injury (PU/PI - an injury to skin and underlying tissue resulting from prolonged pressure on the skin) and failed to initiate timely antibiotic medication to treat PU/PI wound infection for 1 of 2 residents (Resident 1), reviewed for PU/PI. Resident 1 experienced harm when they had a rapid deterioration of multiple PU/PIs that became infected and required hospitalization related to bacteremia (presence of bacteria in the blood), and placed other residents at risk for wound infection, delayed wound healing, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident was free from physical abuse for 1 of 3 residents (Resident 1), reviewed for abuse investigations. This failure placed the resident at risk for serious harm and injury and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure professional standards of practice were followed for 2 of 9 residents (Resident 39 & 146) reviewed for removal of Coban dressing (self-adherent elastic wrap, used to secure dressings, compress, or protect wound sites), weekly skin assessment, and conducting neurological/neuro checks (an assessment to monitor level of consciousness, movement of the eye, facial symmetry, motor assessment of the arms/legs) after an unwitnessed fall. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to air dry drinking glasses before stacking and a fan was blowing over food being prepared on the tray line. These failures placed all the residents at risk for developing food borne illness (caused by ingestion of contaminated food and beverages).
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to electronically transmit Minimum Data Set (MDS) data to the CMS [Center for Medicare and Medicaid] system within the required time frames for 4 of 24 residents (Residents 74, 15, 35 and 7) reviewed for timeliness in transmitting 5 day and/or discharge MDS assessments. This failure placed the residents at risk for unmet care needs and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to recognize and ensure that injuries of unknown source were reported to the state agency for 1 of 4 residents (Resident 146) reviewed for closed record review. This failure placed the resident at risk for abuse and neglect.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to investigate multiple bruises of unknown origin to determine the cause, rule out abuse, and implement interventions to prevent reoccurrence of incidents reported for 1 of 4 residents (Resident 146) reviewed for closed record review. The failure to initiate and/or conduct a thorough investigation placed the resident at risk for delayed identification of potential injury/harm, abuse and neglect, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to conduct a Level II Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) for 1 of 3 residents (Resident 29) reviewed for PASARR. This failure placed the resident at risk for not receiving timely specialized health services, unmet care needs, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, the facility failed to provide appropriate services for administering medications via gastrostomy tube (G-tube, tube inserted through the belly that brings nutrition directly to the stomach) for 1 of 2 residents (Residents 69) reviewed for administration of G-tube medications. This failure placed the resident at risk for drug interactions and complications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure appropriate treatment and services were provided to 1 of 1 resident (Resident 5) reviewed for dementia care. This failure placed the resident at risk for unmet care needs and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to complete an Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS - a test that rates involuntary muscle movements on residents who are administered antipsychotic [mind-altering] medications) assessment, upon admission for 1 of 5 residents (Residents 298) reviewed for unnecessary medications. This failure placed the resident at risk for unrecognized side effects and a diminished quality of life.
31 fire safety citations on file: 12 on November 26, 2025, 8 on September 6, 2024, 11 on May 4, 2023.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| August 29, 2025 | Fine | $14,950 |
| February 1, 2024 | Fine | $38,610 |
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) | 3.87 | 4.36 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 1.05 | 0.94 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.05 | 3.80 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.12 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.70 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 50.5% | 45.1% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 53.8% | 45.4% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 3.90 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 4.20 on weekdays and 3.05 on weekends, 27% 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 4.21 in April to June 2025 to 3.87 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 | 3.87 | 1.05 | 4.20 | 3.05 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 87 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 4.17 | 1.06 | 4.48 | 3.40 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 85 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 4.29 | 1.10 | 4.64 | 3.40 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 84 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 4.21 | 1.18 | 4.53 | 3.41 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 90 |
| 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 | 9.4 | 14.2 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.3 | 1.6 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.8 | 2.6 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.4 | 1.3 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 7.1 | 17.2 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 8.4 | 4.3 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 8.5 | 15.1 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 25.6 | 19.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 12.1 | 13.4 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.2 | 1.3 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.6 | 1.5 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Life Care Center of Kirkland's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (52.6% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
52.6% 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. 336 eligible stays.
9.4% 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. 308 eligible stays.
5.1% 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. 197 eligible stays.
90.9% this home
Median of homes: Washington61.4% · US 56.6%
Percentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 77 residents counted.
0.6% this home
Median of homes: Washington0.0% · US 0.0%
Percentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay. Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 165 residents counted.
2.7% 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. 165 residents counted.
92.1% 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. 38 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: LAKE VUE OPERATIONS, LLC. CMS links this home to Life Care Centers of America, a group of 194 nursing homes averaging 3.4 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kaur, Jasmeen | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 07/06/2021 | |
| Cross, Cindy | Corporate officer | Individual | 09/19/2008 | |
| Preston, Forrest | Corporate officer | Individual | 09/19/2008 | |
| Thurmond, Joan | Corporate officer | Individual | 09/19/2008 | |
| Life Care Centers of America, Inc. | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 10/30/2008 |
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.