Home / Washington / Puyallup
511 10th Avenue Southeast, Puyallup, WA 98372 · Pierce County · (253) 845-7566
102 certified beds, about 94 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1989
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 505324 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on April 10, 2026, inspectors cited 13 health deficiencies (the Washington average is 15.8, the national average 9.2).
Of 38 health citations since November 2023, 1 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $17,155 in the last three years; the largest was $17,155, and the latest is dated April 10, 2026.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 4.47 hours per resident per day, against 4.36 across Washington and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.95 of those hours.
35.5% 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 38 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure freedom from abuse, during resident-to-resident altercations, for 3 of 3 residents (Residents 2, 3, and 4) reviewed for resident abuse. Three physical altercations occurred between 1 aggressor (Resident 1) and 3 victimized residents (Residents 2, 3 and 4) within 24 hours. This failure placed the residents at risk for injury, psychological harm, diminished feelings of safety and security, and a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to provide the necessary treatment and services consistent with professional standards of practice to prevent the development and/or promote healing of PU/PI (Pressure Ulcers/Pressure Injuries) for 4 of 5 Residents (Residents 11, 128, 13, and 134) reviewed for PU/PIs. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement an infection control program to track all infectious organisms present in the facility for 2 of 3 months (January and February 2026) and failed to implement transmission-based precautions for 1 of 4 halls (400 hall) reviewed for infection control. The facility also failed to follow infection control practices during wound care for 1 of 2 residents (Resident 11) when reviewed for wound care. These failures placed the residents at risk for poor clinical outcomes, and a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement an effective Antibiotic Stewardship Program to promote appropriate use of antibiotics, reduce the risk of unnecessary antibiotic use, and decrease the development of adverse side effects and antibiotic resistance for 2 of 2 sampled residents (Residents 80 and 52) reviewed for antibiotic stewardship. This failure placed residents at risk for potential adverse outcomes associated with the inappropriate and/or unnecessary use of antibiotics.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure residents were free from chemical restraints for 1 of 5 sampled residents (Resident 125) reviewed for unnecessary medications. The failure to evaluate and document a clinical rational for continued use of a psychotropic medication and ensure adequate indications for the use of the medications placed residents at risk for decline in activities of daily living, potential adverse consequences, and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to offer bed holds and provide notice of transfer to the resident or Ombudsman (advocacy program to assist residents living in nursing homes) in writing at the time of transfer for 3 of 4 sampled residents (Residents 20, 12, and 3) reviewed for hospitalization. These failures placed the residents at risk for lack of knowledge of their rights and a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure the accuracy of assessments for 3 of 4 residents (Residents 56, 62, and 11) reviewed for accuracy of assessments. These failures placed the residents at risk for unmet care needs, diminished quality of care/quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to initiate new intervention and update the care plan for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident 20) reviewed for accidents. This failure placed the resident at risk of preventable falls, injuries, and a diminished quality of life
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure oral care was provided for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident 91) reviewed for activities of daily living. This failure placed the resident at risk for decreased self-worth, oral infection, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide respiratory care consistent with professional standards of practice for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident 91) reviewed for respiratory care. Failure to follow provider's order placed residents at risk of complications, potential negative outcomes and diminished quality of life
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to act on and/or follow the consultant pharmacist's medication regimen review (MRR) recommendations in a timely manner for 1 of 5 sampled residents (Resident 15) reviewed for unnecessary medication use. This failure placed the resident at risk for receiving unnecessary medications, avoidable medication side effects, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure their facility medication error rate was less than 5%. The facility's medication error rate was 12% for 2 of 5 residents (Resident 43 and 98) reviewed for medication error rate. These failures placed residents at risk for potentially significant medication errors, dehydration, inadequate pain management, and diminished quality of care/quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure intravenous (IV-administered into the veins) medications were properly labeled during administration for 3 of 3 residents (Residents 14, 104, and 125) reviewed for medication labeling and storage. The failure to ensure the medication bag was labeled with the date, time, and nurse initials at the time of administration placed residents at risk for significant medication errors, adverse effects, and diminished quality of care/quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide needed dental services for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident 17) when reviewed for dental services. This failure placed residents at risk for unmet needs, poor nutritional intake, and a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to report an allegation of neglect for 1 of 3 sample residents (Resident 6) reviewed for neglect. This failure placed residents at risk for lack of regulatory oversight and on-going abuse and neglect.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to follow provider orders for laboratory blood work for 1 of 1 resident (Resident 1) reviewed for laboratory services. This failure placed the resident at risk for unidentified changes in condition and lack of, or delayed, medical intervention.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain accurate wound monitoring records for 1 of 1 resident (Resident 5) reviewed for medical records. This failure placed residents at risk for incomplete and inaccurate clinical information being presented to the interdisciplinary team, delays in care, prolonged stay, and a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to create a comprehensive care plan for 2 of 3 residents (Residents 1 and 2) reviewed for urinary incontinence. This failure placed the residents at risk for unmet needs, skin impairments, feelings of discomfort and a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to routinely monitor and assess the status of skin impairments for 2 of 3 residents (Residents 1 and 2) reviewed for pressure injuries. This failure placed the residents at risk for worsening of pressure wounds, lack of appropriate treatment, medical complications and a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to implement treatment and/or monitoring orders for skin impairments (damaged skin) for 2 of 3 residents (Residents 2 and 3) reviewed for skin impairments. This failure placed the residents at risk for worsening wounds and other skin conditions, infection, and re-hospitalization.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to identify an allegation of abuse and failed to report the allegation to the State Agency with the required timeframe for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident 1) reviewed for reporting alleged violations. These failures placed the resident at risk for ongoing abuse/neglect, unmet needs and a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop comprehensive care plans to include all provided nursing services for 2 of 19 sampled residents (Residents 10 and 80) when reviewed for care planning. This failure placed residents at risk for not receiving needed care, a decline in condition, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteResident 75 Review of the quarterly minimum data set (MDS, a required assessment tool), dated 01/16/2025, showed Resident 75 readmitted on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses to include stroke, muscle weakness, cancer, dementia, neurogenic bladder (a loss of bladder control due to damage in the brain, spinal cord, or nerves), anxiety and depression. The MDS showed the resident had a foley catheter (a thin flexible tube inserted into the bladder through the urethra to drain urine) and was dependent on staff for assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs). Review of Resident 75's provider's order summary, dated 07/02/2024, showed for licensed staff to place an indwelling (foley) catheter 16 French (FR, diameter size of the catheter) and to change for infection, obstruction or when closed system was compromised as needed related to the resident's neuromuscular dysfunction of the bladder. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide the necessary grooming services to maintain hygiene for 2 of 4 sampled residents (Residents 49 and 61) when reviewed for activities of daily living. This failure placed the residents at risk of feelings of indignity, decreased social interaction, and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the necessary interventions were in place for residents with a history of a fractured humerus (a bone in the upper arm) for 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident 75) when reviewed for positioning and mobility. The facility also failed to consistently monitor and document bowel movements and implement the bowel program as needed for 2 of 7 sampled residents (Residents 6 and 49) when reviewed for bowel protocol. These failures placed the residents at risk for worsening condition, discomfort, and a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure fall mats were in place to minimize the risk for injury during a fall for 1 of 4 sampled residents (Residents 75) when reviewed for accident hazards. This failure placed residents at risk for potential injury, negative outcomes and decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide pain management to adequately control residents pain for 1 of 6 sampled residents (Resident 3) when reviewed for pain management. This failure put residents at risk of uncontrolled pain and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment in 1 of 4 hallways (300 hallway) reviewed for Environment. Failure to ensure Resident 21's and 72's wheelchair armrests were in good repair placed residents at risk for injury, medical complications, and decrease quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure the survey results were posted in a place readily accessible to all residents and to post notices regarding the availability of the survey reports in areas that were prominent. These failures prevented residents and resident representatives the opportunity to use past survey results to evaluate the quality of care provided by the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide written notification of the reason for transfer to the hospital to the resident and/or resident representative for 3 of 4 sampled residents (Residents 21, 54, and 72) reviewed for hospitalization. This failure placed the residents at risk for not knowing rights regarding transfer and discharge from the facility and diminished protection from being inappropriately discharged .
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to cover resident catheter bags to maintain dignity for 2 of 2 residents (Residents 20 and 47) reviewed for dignity. This failure placed residents at risk of depressed mood, feelings of worthlessness, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure freedom from unnecessary pain medication for 3 of 5 residents (Residents 55, 11 and 25) and ensure that providers orders (heart rate parameters) were followed prior to the administration of medication for 1 of 5 residents (Resident 55) reviewed for unnecessary medication. These failures placed the residents at risk for side-effects related to the medication, medical complications, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF) Advanced Beneficiary Notices (ABN: a notification that provides an estimated cost of continuing services which may no longer be covered by Medicare. Beneficiaries may choose to continue the services but may be financially liable), and/or the Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) was provided and completed as required for 2 of 3 residents (Residents 34 and 66) reviewed for Beneficiary Notification. These failures placed residents at risk of not upholding their right to make informed choices about further treatment or services as required by the Medicare Program and of not being informed of their appeal rights prior to the end of Medicare covered services.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide safe, sanitary, and homelike environment in 1 of 4 hallways (200 hallway) reviewed for Environment. Failure to ensure Resident 32's and 50's bathrooms and Resident 32's wheelchair break handles were sanitary and in good repair placed residents at risk for injury, medical complications, and decrease quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement identified mental health interventions for 1 of 2 residents (Resident 47) when reviewed for PASRR. This failure placed residents at risk of not receiving needed mental health interventions, an increase in avoidable behaviors, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteResident 25 During an interview on 01/03/2024 Resident 25 stated, I am on fluid restriction of 40 ounces [1182.941 milliliters (ml)] every day. During an interview and observation on 01/05/2024 at 11:39 AM, Resident 25 stated that staff filled their personal water bottle [NAME] with ice because they liked to chew on ice. Resident 25's water bottle [NAME] showed it held 24 ounces (710 ml), and there was a plastic water bottle of 16.9 fluid ounces that was two thirds filled with water on the overbed table. Additionally, Resident 25 stated that they received fluids from the kitchen with meals; however, they were not sure if staff kept track of how much they consumed during mealtime and on their own during the day. Review of the significant change in status MDS dated [DATE] showed that Resident 25 admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included heart failure and kidney failure. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to consistently conduct and document pre and post dialysis (treatment to filter wastes and water from the blood) assessments and ensure consistent ongoing communication and collaboration with the dialysis facility regarding dialysis care and services for 1 of 1 resident (Resident 25) reviewed for Dialysis. This failure had the potential to place the resident at risk for unmet care needs and medical complications.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify the resident, or the resident's responsible party, of new medications ordered to be administered for three of four residents (Residents 1, 3 and 4) reviewed for notification of changes. This failure prevented the resident and/or resident's representatives from being included in their plans of care and decision-making processes.
23 fire safety citations on file: 5 on April 10, 2026, 10 on February 27, 2025, 8 on January 9, 2024.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| April 10, 2026 | Fine | $17,155 |
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) | 4.47 | 4.36 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.95 | 0.94 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.80 | 3.80 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.65 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.87 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 35.5% | 45.1% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 36.8% | 45.4% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 4.13 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 4.74 on weekdays and 3.80 on weekends, 20% 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 4.44 in April to June 2025 to 4.47 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 | 4.47 | 0.95 | 4.74 | 3.80 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 94 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 4.75 | 0.98 | 4.98 | 4.15 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 91 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 4.58 | 0.90 | 4.83 | 3.96 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 90 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 4.44 | 0.75 | 4.64 | 3.92 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 95 |
| 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 | 6.7 | 14.2 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.6 | 1.6 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.6 | 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 | 9.2 | 17.2 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 7.0 | 4.3 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 14.4 | 15.1 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 22.5 | 19.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 15.5 | 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 | 1.4 | 1.5 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Life Care Center of Puyallup's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (44.3% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
44.3% 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. 136 eligible stays.
10.9% 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. 117 eligible stays.
9.5% 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. 92 eligible stays.
77.8% 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. 54 residents counted.
0.8% this home
Median of homes: Washington0.0% · US 0.0%
Percentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay. Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 118 residents counted.
0.7% 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. 118 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. 59 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: VALLEY TERRACE 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nimz, Paul | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 07/30/2015 | |
| Cross, Cindy | Corporate officer | Individual | 10/26/1995 | |
| Thurmond, Joan | Corporate officer | Individual | 09/21/2000 | |
| Life Care Centers of America, Inc. | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 01/01/1996 |
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.