Home / Washington / Port Orchard
2031 Pottery Avenue, Port Orchard, WA 98366 · Kitsap County · (360) 876-8035
125 certified beds, about 86 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1979
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 505210 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on April 10, 2026, inspectors cited 15 health deficiencies (the Washington average is 15.8, the national average 9.2).
None of its 35 health citations since December 2023 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy.
CMS lists no fines against this home in the last three years.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.84 hours per resident per day, against 4.36 across Washington and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 1.05 of those hours.
39.8% 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 35 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide care and services according to professional standards for 1 of 4 residents (Resident 1) reviewed for quality of care, when the facility failed to assess and document respiratory status for a newly admitted resident. This failure placed residents at risk for unidentified and/or unmet care needs, negative health outcomes, and a decreased quality of life
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to obtain labs as ordered, review and report to provider abnormal labs timely, and failed to fully implement neurological assessments for 1 of 4 residents (Resident 1) reviewed for Quality of Care. This failure places all residents at risk of unmet care needs, decreased quality of life, and other potential health complications.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure sufficient qualified nursing staff were available to provide care and services as evidenced by information provided in Resident/Surveyor interviews for 11 residents (Resident 56, 4, 60, 40, 71, 2, 34, 7, 50, 36 & 97) interviewed, and 3 staff (Staff L, G & M) interviewed. The facility had insufficient staff to ensure residents received assistance with care in a timely manner without long wait times. These failures 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 provide food that was palatable, attractive, and served at an appetizing temperature for 4 of 4 sampled Halls (Halls A, B, North 1 and North 2) reviewed for food . This failure placed residents at risk of weight loss, depressed mood, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify the resident's representative of a new medication order and a doctor's appointment for 1 of 2 residents (Resident 6) reviewed for notification of change. This failure placed the resident at risk for not having their representative involved in their health care decision making and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to initiate, investigate, and resolve a grievance for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident 3) reviewed for personal property and grievances. This failure placed the residents at risk for emotional distress and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure pharmacy recommended gradual dose reductions (GDR, a stepwise tapering of a dose to determine if symptoms, conditions, or risks can be managed by a lower dose or if the dose or medication can be discontinued) of psychotropic medications (prescription drugs that alter chemical levels in the brain, affecting mood, perception, thoughts, and behavior) were carried out, or if declined, a clinical rationale that indicated why a GDR attempt was likely to impair function or cause psychiatric instability in the individual was documented by the provider in the residents record, for 1 of 5 residents (Resident 56) reviewed for unnecessary medications. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool, accurately reflected the status for 2 of 18 sampled residents (Resident 28 & 5) reviewed for accuracy of 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 ensure Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) assessments were accurately completed for 1 of 5 residents (Resident 3) reviewed for PASRRs and unnecessary medications. This failure placed the residents at risk for inaccurate mental health diagnoses and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents received the bowel care in accordance with provider orders for 2 of 7 residents (Resident 97 &1) reviewed for bowel management, and routine assessment and monitoring of edema (swelling caused by excess fluid trapped in the body's tissues) occurred for 1 of 2 residents (Resident 1) reviewed for edema management. These failures placed residents at risk for abdominal pain/discomfort, nausea, decreased appetite, delayed identification of fluid volume changes and other negative health outcomes.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to monitor and accurately document fluids consumed to ensure fluid restrictions (a diet which limits the amount of daily fluid intake) was implemented per provider's orders for 2 of 4 residents (Resident 48 and 96) reviewed for nutrition. These failures placed the residents at risk for medical complications and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure respiratory services were provided according to professional standards of practice for 1 of 2 sampled residents (Residents 2) reviewed for respiratory care. Failure to have a provider's order for oxygen placed residents at risk for discomfort, unmet needs and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to complete Certified Nursing Assistant's (CNA) annual performance reviews as required for 3 of 5 sampled nursing assistants (Staff H, I, & J) reviewed for performance reviews. This failure placed residents at risk of receiving care from inadequately trained and/or under-qualified care staff, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure medications were dated when opened for 2 of 3 medication carts (A hall cart & North hall cart) reviewed for medication storage. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure medications were secured for 1 of 1 resident (Resident 28) observed with medications at bedside. These failures placed residents at risk for medication discrepancies and an impaired quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure dental services were provided for 1 of 3 Medicaid residents (Resident 1) reviewed for dental services. The facility's failure to follow up on dental referrals and to assist with appointment scheduling and transportation arrangements that resulted in Resident 1 not receiving the dental services they were assessed to require (tooth extraction(s) and new upper and lower dentures). These failures placed residents at risk for unmet dental needs including difficulty chewing, oral pain, decreased self-image and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure food preferences related to portion sizes were honored for 7 of 19 sampled residents (Residents 87, 77, 63, 61, 57, 37 and 4) reviewed for resident rights. This failure placed the residents at risk for dissatisfaction and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement a system to ensure Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) received the required training for continued competency of no less than 12 hours per year for 2 of 5 sampled staff (Staff I & K) reviewed for training. The failure to implement a system to provide mandatory training placed residents at risk for abuse, neglect, emotional distress, physical injury and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide care and services adequate to prevent hospitalization for 2 of 3 residents (Residents 1 & 2) reviewed for hospitalization. The facility failed to provide and monitor for adequate hydration, recognize and intervene when decline occurred, and failed to notify physician and family of abnormal laboratory results. This failure placed residents at risk for dehydration, hospitalization, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to accurately assess Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments for 2 of 24 sampled residents (Residents 12 & 39) reviewed. Failure to ensure accurate assessments regarding Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) and oxygen requirements, placed residents at risk for unidentified and/or unmet care needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure baseline care plans were developed and implemented within 48 hours of admission and included the minimum information necessary to properly care for 2 of 6 residents (Residents 131 and 331) reviewed for new admission. This failure placed residents at risk for unidentified and/or unmet care needs, and other negative health outcomes.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement individualized comprehensive care plans for 3 of 19 residents (Residents 1, 44, & 59) whose care plans were reviewed. This failure placed residents at risk for unmet care needs and other potential negative outcomes.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure services provided met professional standards of practice for 4 of 19 sample residents (Residents 1, 21, 331 and 59) reviewed. The facility's failure to obtain, follow and clarify physicians' orders when indicated, and to only sign for tasks they completed or validated were complete, placed residents at risk for medication errors, delays in treatment, unmet care needs, and potential negative outcomes.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement or document on the bowel protocol (how the facility intervenes to a resident with no bowel movement over a certain amount of time) for 2 of 3 sampled residents (Residents 59 & 1) reviewed for constipation. This failure placed residents at risk for unidentified care needs, discomfort, lack of monitoring, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to appropriately monitor pressure ulcers in a manner consistent with professional standards of practice for 2 of 5 sampled residents (Residents 59 and 44) reviewed for pressure ulcers. This failure placed residents at risk of worsening conditions, unnecessary treatment, pain, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 3 residents (Resident 21) reviewed for insulin administration were free of significant medication errors. The failure to administer insulin in accordance with physician orders, and to hold insulin when blood glucose (BG) levels were below the ordered parameters for administration, placed residents at risk for hypoglycemia, seizures, coma and death.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interview and record review, the facility failed to enforce Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) for 1 of 8 sampled residents (Resident 331) reviewed for infection control practices, to prevent residents' urinary catheter/foley (tube that goes into the bladder to drain urine) tubing or bags from touching the ground for 2 of 2 residents (Resident 331 &39) reviewed for urinary catheters, to ensure contact precautions were understood and followed outside of resident rooms for 2 of 2 sampled residents (Resident 39 & 131) reviewed, and to ensure staff complied with current infection control guidelines and standards of practice regarding proper hand hygiene/gloving practices for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident 22) reviewed for wound care. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to obtain a physician ordered x-ray, in a timely manner, for 1 of 3 residents (Resident 1) reviewed for radiology and other diagnostic services. This failure placed residents at risk for a delay in assessment and treatment of declining respiratory status.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure safe transfers for 1 of 3 residents (Resident 1) reviewed for accidents when the facility did not use the mechanical lift's manufacturer's recommended sling when transferring a resident, resulting in the resident sliding from the sling. This failure placed residents at risk for unsafe transfers, potential injury, and decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents did not receive unnecessary medications for 3 of 5 sample Residents (25, 30, 62) reviewed for unnecessary medication use. The facility failure to attempt a Gradual Dose Reduction (GDR) of an antipsychotic medication or provide evidence a reduction had been attempted placed residents at risk for receiving an unneeded medication and potentially experiencing side effects related to the use of the medication.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident care plans were reviewed, revised, and accurately reflected residents' care needs for 4 of 21 residents (Residents 12, 132, 25 and 13) whose care plans were reviewed. These failures 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 for 3 of 21 sampled residents (Residents 61, 64 and 132) reviewed. The failure to follow and/or clarify incomplete physician's orders when indicated, and to only sign for those tasks completed, placed residents at risk for medication errors and unmet care needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide the necessary care and services to maintain residents' highest practicable level of well-being for 2 of 8 residents (Residents 64 and 132) reviewed for bowel management and 1 of 4 residents (Resident 13) reviewed for non-pressure skin conditions. The failure to initiate bowel care in accordance with physician's orders and to implement ordered treatments for non-pressure skin conditions, placed residents at risk for pain/discomfort, delayed wound healing, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure 1 of 3 residents (Resident 13) reviewed for pressure ulcers received care and services in accordance with the physician's orders. The failure to implement a physician ordered treatment placed residents at risk for infection, unmet care needs and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure oxygen services were provided in accordance with professional standards of practice for 1 of 1 resident (Residents 12) reviewed for respiratory care. The facility's failure to maintain oxygen concentrator filters (used to protect the resident from inhaling dust and particulate matter) in a clean functional condition, to ensure oxygen tubing was routinely changed, labeled/dated and ensure residents' humidifier bottles had enough fluid to maintain functionality, placed residents at risk for inhalation of contaminants, respiratory infections, bloody noses and other potential negative healthcare outcomes.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident medical records were complete, accurate and readily accessible for 2 of 21 sampled residents (Residents 132 and 13) reviewed for medical records. The failure to ensure resident wound assessments were accurate, timely obtained from consulting wound care services, and filed and accessible in residents' medical records, prevented facility staff and providers from accessing complete and accurate health information on residents under their care. These failures placed residents at risk for delayed identification of changes in wound characteristics, medical decisions being made on incomplete or inaccurate information, unmet care needs and other adverse health outcomes.
14 fire safety citations on file: 5 on April 10, 2026, 2 on February 28, 2025, 7 on December 11, 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) | 3.84 | 4.36 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 1.05 | 0.94 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.17 | 3.80 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.07 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.72 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 39.8% | 45.1% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 25.0% | 45.4% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.97 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 4.11 on weekdays and 3.17 on weekends, 23% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.5% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.88 in April to June 2025 to 3.84 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 | 3.84 | 1.05 | 4.11 | 3.17 | 0.5% | 0 of 90 | 86 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.89 | 1.11 | 4.17 | 3.18 | 2.2% | 0 of 92 | 83 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.56 | 0.88 | 3.79 | 2.99 | 2.7% | 0 of 92 | 82 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.88 | 0.91 | 4.14 | 3.23 | 1.7% | 1 of 91 | 80 |
| 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 | 6.3 | 14.2 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.2 | 1.6 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 2.6 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.6 | 1.3 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 12.3 | 17.2 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.2 | 4.3 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 11.1 | 15.1 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 15.7 | 19.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 8.3 | 13.4 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.5 | 1.3 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.5 | 1.5 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Life Care Center of Port Orchard's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it better than the national rate (60.2% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
60.2% 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. 253 eligible stays.
9.6% 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. 227 eligible stays.
5.7% 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. 183 eligible stays.
89.1% 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. 184 residents counted.
0.4% 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. 236 residents counted.
4.5% this home
Median of homes: Washington1.4% · US 1.7%
Percentage of residents with pressure ulcers or pressure injuries that are new or worsened (adjusted rate). Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 236 residents counted.
100.0% this home
Median of homes: Washington98.3% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 172 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: PORT ORCHARD OPERATIONS, LLC. CMS links this home to Life Care Centers of America, a group of 194 nursing homes averaging 3.4 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Developers Investment Company Inc | Direct ownership interest | Organization | 09/19/2008 | |
| Fletcher, Todd | Direct ownership interest | Individual | 09/19/2008 | |
| Preston, Forrest | Direct ownership interest | Individual | 09/19/2008 | |
| Preston, Forrest | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 09/19/2008 | |
| Butner, Nancy | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 09/16/2018 | |
| Goodin, Sarah | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 09/08/2020 | |
| Miller, Jacob | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 05/03/2021 | |
| Lay, Lisa | Corporate director | Individual | 04/24/2017 | |
| Swanker, Richard | Corporate director | Individual | 01/01/2022 | |
| Ziegler, James | Corporate director | Individual | 10/30/2008 | |
| Cross, Cindy | Corporate officer | Individual | 10/30/2008 | |
| Henry, Terry | Corporate officer | Individual | 10/30/2008 | |
| Lay, Lisa | Corporate officer | Individual | 02/09/2018 | |
| Swanker, Richard | Corporate officer | Individual | 04/01/2011 | |
| Thurmond, Joan | Corporate officer | Individual | 10/30/2008 | |
| Ziegler, James | Corporate officer | Individual | 10/30/2008 | |
| Developers Investment Company Inc | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 09/19/2008 | |
| Life Care Centers of America, Inc. | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 10/30/2008 | |
| Butner, Nancy | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 09/16/2018 | |
| Fletcher, Todd | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 09/19/2008 | |
| Goodin, Sarah | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 09/08/2020 | |
| Miller, Jacob | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 05/03/2021 | |
| Preston, Aubrey | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 11/27/2024 | |
| Preston, Forrest | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 09/18/2008 | |
| Sekeramayi, Floyd | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 10/02/2023 | |
| Life Care Centers of America, Inc. | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 02/27/2025 | |
| Fletcher, Todd | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 10/15/2004 | |
| Miller, Jacob | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/28/2025 | |
| Preston, Forrest | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 10/15/2004 | |
| Sekeramayi, Floyd | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/28/2025 |
As listed in the CMS ownership file, which names owners with a 5% or greater stake and the people and companies with operational or managerial control.
Chosen from this home's own inspection record.
These are the official offices in Washington. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.