Home / Washington / Sedro Woolley
1462 West State Route 20, Sedro Woolley, WA 98284 · Skagit County · (360) 856-6869
150 certified beds, about 78 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1988
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 505318 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on May 15, 2026, inspectors cited 10 health deficiencies (the Washington average is 15.8, the national average 9.2).
Of 52 health citations since November 2023, 1 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $32,646 in the last three years; the largest was $32,646, and the latest is dated February 23, 2026.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 4.20 hours per resident per day, against 4.36 across Washington and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.87 of those hours.
39.3% 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 52 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to act, respond, and resolve the organized resident group's concerns for 1 of 1 Resident Council groups. The facility's failure to provide assistance, respond to written requests from the group meetings, and maintain accurate meetings minutes, resulted in reported concerns going unidentified and uninvestigated, and placed residents at risk for unidentified, unmet care needs and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure 5 of 5 sampled residents (11, 13, 20, 44, and 59) were free from unnecessary psychotropic medications (drugs that affect brain activities associated with mental processes and behavior) as required. The facility failed to comprehensively assess the risks, benefits and parameters of use and to ensure the least restrictive alternatives were attempted. The facility further failed to ensure consent was obtained prior to administration, and appropriate indication and monitoring of psychotropic medications. This failure placed residents at risk of experiencing unnecessary side effects such as sedation, falls, decline in physical functioning, and adverse medical events including stroke and death and placed residents at risk of experiencing an undignified life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide assistance with bathing and grooming for 6 of 7 residents (Residents 8, 13, 15, 44, 63, and 79) reviewed who were dependent on staff to carry out their ADL's (activities of daily living). Failure to provide the residents assistance with bathing and grooming, placed the residents and others at risk for poor hygiene, unmet care needs and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure treatment and care was provided in accordance with professional standards of practice for 1 of 1 resident (Resident 17) reviewed for edema and 2 of 5 residents (Resident 44 and 59) reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility failed to implement physician orders for edema management and daily weights and failed to implement the facility bowel protocol. These failures placed the residents at risk for decline and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide the necessary care and services related to restorative nursing programs (RNPs) for 3 of 4 residents (Residents 15, 63 and 79) reviewed for positioning, mobility, and range of motion. This failed practice placed residents at risk for decline in function, contractures (shortening and hardening of muscles, tendons leading to deformity and rigidity of joints), pain and increased dependency on caregivers.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain residents' rights to privacy and choices for 2 of 3 residents (Residents 1 and 2) reviewed for dignity. Failure to ensure Resident 1 was provided privacy during cares and to determine preferences for Resident 2, placed the residents at risk for diminished dignity and decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record reviewed, the facility failed to ensure notification to the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman (LTCO - resident advocates) occurred for 2 of 4 sampled residents (Residents 9 and 12) reviewed for hospitalization. The failure to notify the LTCO and ensure written notification was provided to the resident/resident representative, in a language and manner they understood, placed residents at risk for lack of advocacy, to have the opportunity to make informed decisions about their transfer/discharge rights and possible unidentified or unmet care needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 1 resident (Resident 1) reviewed for activities received an ongoing program of activities to meet the individual resident's physical and mental needs. Based on the reasonable person concept, not having adequate recreation and/or sensory stimulation placed the resident at risk for social isolation, lack of stimulation and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure 2 of 5 residents (Residents 13 and 63) were free from significant medication errors. The residents' medication orders were not followed per physicians' orders. Failure to properly hold and/or administer medications placed the residents at risk for complications including increased low blood pressure, low pulse, adverse health events and a potential decline in their condition.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff were compliant with Infection Prevention and Control Guidelines and standards of practice for 2 of 3 residents (Residents 57 and 92) reviewed for transmission-based precautions (TBP), 1 of 2 staff (Staff O, Certified Nursing Assistant - CNA) reviewed for environmental disinfection of equipment. The facility failed to ensure the staff were wearing appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) in accordance with recommended national standards and failed to ensure staff were compliant with appropriately disinfecting reusable resident equipment. These failures placed all residents and staff at risk of potential infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR - a federally required screening of all individuals who has both an Intellectual Disability (ID) or Related Condition (RC) and a serious mental illness (SMI) prior to admission to a Medicaid-certified nursing facility or a significant change of condition) form was completed prior to admission and according to the guidelines specified for 1 of 5 sampled residents (Resident 1) reviewed for PASRR. Failure to obtain the PASRR and PASRR determination letter prior to admission placed the resident at risk for inappropriate placement and/or lack of access to specialized services for residents with identified mental health diagnoses or disability.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to implement measures to prevent development of an avoidable pressure ulcer (PU) and provide ordered treatment for the PU for 1 of 3 residents (Resident 1) reviewed for PU's. Resident 1 experienced harm when they developed an avoidable unstageable PU (a full-thickness skin and tissue loss where the actual depth of the wound is hidden by slough (yellow, tan, gray, green, or brown necrotic tissue) or eschar (tan, brown, or black, hard, necrotic tissue) which caused pain and discomfort. this failure placed residents at risk for skin breakdown, unmet care needs and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure broken window locking devices were repaired and window screens were available and repaired timely for 2 of 3 rooms (rooms [ROOM NUMBERS]) reviewed for safe, functional and comfortable environment for residents, staff and the public. These failures placed residents and the public at risk of potentially avoidable accidents, lack of dignity and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide medically related social services and to advocate for 1 of 2 cognitively impaired residents (Resident 1) reviewed for advanced directives. The facility failed to advocate, educate, and obtain appropriate legal assistance in the development of an advanced directive and placed residents at risk of not having their rights and wishes honored.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident care plans (CPs) were reviewed, revised, and accurately reflected residents' care needs for 1 of 3 sample residents (Resident 4) whose CP was reviewed for discharge planning and urinary status. These failures placed residents at risk for unmet care needs and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure clinical records were accurate for 2 of 3 residents (Residents 4 and 9) reviewed for wounds. The failure to ensure the residents' clinical records were accurate placed them at risk for unmet care needs, and for having records that did not reflect the actual care provided.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, observation and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident preferences for food were obtained and honored for 4 of 4 residents (Residents 5, 21, 35, and 45) reviewed for choices. The facility refused to allow residents the ability to safely consume food items that were brought from outside sources when they removed the ability to heat up their food. This resulted in the residents losing their ability to choose their meal of preference and snacks of choice. These failures placed residents at risk for decreased quality of life. Review of the facility policy titled Resident Rights, reviewed 09/10/2024 stated residents had the right to self-determination with access to people and services in and outside of the facility. Residents had the right to make choices about aspects of their life in the facility that are significant to the resident. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a clean, comfortable, homelike environment in 2 of 4 halls (shared bathroom between room [ROOM NUMBER]-215, and 114-115), in 1 of 3 shower rooms (community shower room for 400/500 halls), and 1 of 1 dining rooms. Failure to ensure the facility was clean, comfortable, and homelike placed residents at risk for decreased quality of life, compromised dignity, and potential infection control issues.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADLs - daily hygiene and other self-care tasks) for 4 of 7 residents (Residents 6, 7, 17, and 8) reviewed for ADLs. The failure to provide ADL assistance to residents placed residents at risk for poor hygiene, diminished feelings of self-worth, and other adverse health outcomes.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide meals that were palatable and at an appetizing temperature per 1 of 1 resident groups (Residents 3, 19, 35, 46, 59, and 182), 3 resident interviews (Residents 19, 37, and 45), and 2 of 3 resident dietary grievances (Residents 46, and 50) reviewed. These failures resulted in residents experiencing dissatisfaction with their meals and placed residents at risk for decreased quality of life and weight loss.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure their policy for foods brought in from outside sources was implemented. The facility failed to ensure safe and sanitary storage, handling and consumption of the foods brought into the facility. This failure placed residents at risk for decreased quality of life related to an inability to exercise their rights and preferences to have food items of their choice brought into the facility and safely stored and consumed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to conduct a thorough investigation of an injury of unknown source for 1 of 6 residents (Resident 30) to rule out abuse and neglect. This failed practice placed residents at risk for potential unrecognized abuse or neglect.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure timely completion and transmission of required Minimum Data Set Assessments (MDS) (a required assessment tool) for 1 of 3 residents (Resident 62) reviewed for discharge process. Failure to complete the required discharge assessment as required can impact the accuracy of the facility's quality measures and has the potential to affect facility payments.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were provided with interventions to maintain or prevent declines in range of motion (ROM) for 1 of 3 residents (Resident 27) reviewed for positioning and mobility. Failure to apply splints and braces as ordered can result in increased contracture (permanent tightening of the muscles, tendons, skin, and nearby tissues that causes the joints to shorten and become very stiff), decreased mobility, and/or increased pain and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents' menus and individual food plans met the nutritional needs and preferences for 1 of 2 residents (Resident 7) reviewed for food preferences. The failure to ensure residents received foods that met their nutritional needs, and their individual preferences placed residents at risk for weight loss, dissatisfaction with their food and diminished quality of life
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure foods were prepared under sanitary conditions for 1 of 1 facility kitchens, and to ensure expired items were discarded from 1 of 2 nourishment refrigerators. These failures places resident at risk for food borne illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff were compliant with Infection Prevention and Control Guidelines and standards of practice for 1 of 1 residents (Resident 30) reviewed for Transmission Based Precaution (TBP-are a set of infection control measures used in healthcare settings to prevent the spread of infectious diseases that are transmitted through contact with an infected patient, their bodily fluids, or contaminated surfaces or objects), 1 of 2 residents (Resident 13) reviewed for Enhanced Barrier Precaution (EBP-infection control intervention designed to reduce transmissions of multi-drug resistant organisms (MDROs in nursing homes) and 1 of 3 residents (Resident 27) observed during personal care. These failures placed residents and staff at risk for potential infection from cross contamination of infectious organisms.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility administration failed to obtain and use resources to manage the facility effectively and efficiently to maintain substantial compliance with federal and state regulatory requirements and to meet the significant health needs of their residents. The administration failed to provide needed administrative oversight and monitoring of facility personnel, systems, and policies and practices related to care planning, the resident environment, provision of activities of daily living for dependent residents, range of motion services, respiratory cares, sufficient nursing staff, provision of medically related social services, pharmacy services and procedures, food service procedures, infection control and prevention, and in tuberculosis two-step skin testing. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to initiate a grievance from 1 of 1 resident groups (Resident Council) reviewed for grievances. The facility's failure to initiate, log, investigate verbalized concerns, and inform the resident of their findings and the actions taken, precluded the facility from identifying grievance trends and placed the residents at risk of feeling frustrated, unimportant, and with a decreased self-worth and quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, observation and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for six of 18 sampled residents (Residents 5, 6, 8, 49, 53 and 168) reviewed for care planning. This failure placed residents at risk for unidentified outcomes or goals, inconsistent or lack of interventions, and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure Care Plans (CPs) were accurately reviewed and revised to reflect current resident status and needs for 4 of 18 sample residents (Residents 2, 6, 43, 53) reviewed for care planning. This failure left 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 the assistance with activities of daily living (ADL's) for 5 of 8 sampled dependent residents (7, 8, 23, 24, and 28) reviewed for ADL's. The facility failed to provide showers/bathing assistance to residents (7, 8, 23, and 28), who were dependent on staff for bathing, and failed to ensure Resident 24 who was dependent for assistance with toileting was provided the necessary assistance. These failures placed the residents at risk for embarrassment, poor hygiene, unmet care needs and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to have sufficient staff to provide and supervise care as evidenced by information provided by 6 (8, 13,17,20, 42 and 51) resident interviews; Resident Council (3, 9, 20, 36) and as evidenced by failed practice in many identified quality of life and quality of care areas. The facility had insufficient staff to ensure residents received assistance with activities of daily living (ADL) including grooming and showers, assessments, care planning, care plan revision, respiratory care, restorative services, pain management, medication administration and call light response in accordance with established clinical standards, and resident needs and preferences. These failures placed residents at risk for unmet care needs and negative outcomes. Findings Included . Review of the Facility Assessment on 07/24/2024, showed: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure timely administration of scheduled medications for 4 of 4 sample residents (Residents 16, 1, 38, 7) reviewed who had not yet received their morning medications though the facility's AM Medication Pass times had elapsed. This failure resulted in residents not receiving timely pain medications, anticoagulant medications, medication ordered to be given with breakfast not given until hours after breakfast, diabetic medication, and medication for breathing problems. This failed practice resulted in Resident 16 reporting 10/10 pain two consecutive mornings in a row and it placed residents at risk for adverse medication-related outcomes and for diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure food was stored, prepared, and served under sanitary conditions in 1 of 1 facility kitchens. The failure to ensure staff wore hair restraints placed residents at risk for receiving food contaminated by hairs from staff not utilizing hair restraints.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure staff were compliant with Infection Prevention and Control Guidelines and standard of practice for 1 of 4 meal carts (Cart 2) during dining service, 1 of 1 staff (Staff P) during peri-care (cleaning the genital and anal areas of a resident), and 1 of 3 resident rooms (room [ROOM NUMBER]) for transmission-based precautions (TBP). The facility failed to ensure the staff were compliant with appropriate hand hygiene practices while serving meals, and while they assisted a resident with toileting needs. The facility failed to ensure the appropriate type of TBP was initiated for a resident on contact enteric isolation precautions for Clostridium difficile [(c. diff) spore-producing pathogen that can cause diarrhea and inflammation of the colon]. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to obtain and/or maintain Advance Directives (AD) for 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident 24) reviewed for AD. This failure placed residents at risk for losing their right to have their healthcare preferences and/or decisions honored.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure a homelike environment for 3 of 3 sample residents' (11, 28, 17) rooms reviewed for a homelike environment and for unclean windows and screens in the facility conference room. The failure to provide homelike décor/furnishings and to ensure clean room windows and screens placed the residents at risk for living in an institutionalized environment and for having to look through soiled windows and screens. This failed practice also placed staff and the public at risk for having to look out soiled windows and screens in the facility conference room.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to identify a Significant Change in Status for 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident 43), reviewed for Hospice services. Failure to identify and complete a Significant Change in Status assessment, according to the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) requirements, placed residents at risk for inadequate care planning and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to complete a discharge summary, including a recapitulation of the resident's stay as required, for 1 of 3 sampled residents ( Resident 65), reviewed for discharge. These failures placed residents at risk of post-discharge complications, delayed treatment, and decline in their overall condition by not having the necessary information and services established to ensure continuity of care for a successful discharge to the community.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure 3 of 4 residents (5, 17, and 23) reviewed for limited Range of Motion (ROM) received necessary care and services to maintain level of functioning and/or prevent decline. The facility failed to ensure residents was evaluated and were provided the appropriate care and services, they failed to ensure consistent use of braces/splints were implemented as ordered and failed to ensure residents received appropriate restorative nursing services programs as ordered. This failure placed residents at risk for decline in mobility and function, increased dependence on staff, and a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement nutritional interventions, and evaluate the effectiveness of the interventions for 1 of 5 residents (Resident 23) reviewed for nutritional needs. The facility failed to consistently obtain weights and re-weights, notify appropriate parties, and implement Registered Dietician's (RD) recommendations. This failure placed the residents at risk for delayed identification of weight loss and failed to implement appropriate interventions to prevent continued weight loss and decreased 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 8), reviewed for tube feeding management. The failure to label/date and discard tube feeding supplies, and syringes placed the resident at risk for infection and related complications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure 2 of 3 residents (Residents 17 and 24) reviewed for respiratory care and services were provided care consistent with professional standards of practice. The facility failed to ensure the concentrator was set to the ordered dosage for Resident 24's Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) (a machine that delivers pressurized air through a mask to the airway allowing a resident to breathe easily and regularly when asleep) and daily oxygen therapy through a nasal cannula (a device that delivers extra oxygen through a tube and into your nose) while awake and failed to ensure an order was in place for the use of oxygen for Resident 17. These failures placed residents at risk for health complications, receiving care and services that were not physician ordered, unmet care needs and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide necessary pain management for 1 of 4 sampled residents (Resident 16) reviewed for pain management. This failure placed residents at risk for avoidable pain and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to advocate and assist 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident 13) in advocating for their rights within the facility. The failure to assist the resident in having care planning meetings to ensure their voice was heard regarding their care and preferences placed residents at risk for unmet care needs and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the infection prevention and control Antibiotic Stewardship Program (ASP, a system-wide implementation of measures for monitoring/tracking of antibiotics along with reducing the risk of unnecessary antibiotic use) was implemented for 1 of 1 resident (Resident 8). This failure increased the resident's risk for development of multidrug-resistant organisms (a bacteria that are resistant to many antibiotics) along with the potential for unidentified nursing care trends that identify risk related to infection prevention. This failure had the potential for adverse outcomes associated with unnecessary or inappropriate antibiotic use and a decrease in quality of life for all facility residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to provide resident focused care through consistent monitoring, assessment and evaluation of the residents' condition and develop interventions for urinary tract infections (UTI) for 1 of 5 sampled residents (Resident 1), reviewed for quality of care. This failure placed residents at risk of medical complications, unmet care needs, and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure pharmacy services were provided to meet the needs of 3 of 4 residents (Resident 1,2, and 3) reviewed for medications. The failure to ensure medications were acquired and administered as ordered on the day of admission and follow facility processes for medications not available placed residents at risk for adverse events related to missed medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure 3 of 4 residents (Resident 1, 2, and 3) reviewed received care and treatment in accordance with professional standards of practice and received the necessary care and services to attain or maintain their highest practicable level of well-being. The facility failed to maintain resident's fingernails in satisfactory condition to prevent injury, hygiene, discomfort, and respect for the resident's preferences. Failure to provide adequate care for resident's fingernails placed all residents at risk of injury, discomfort, discomfort, and frustration.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to thoroughly assess and stage a pressure ulcer at onset and weekly, maintain clear and accurate wound documentation, and develop an individualized care plan for pressure ulcer for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident 1) reviewed for pressure ulcers (PU's). This failure placed residents at risk for deterioration of their wounds and for diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review the facility failed to implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident 1) reviewed for implementation of care plans. The facility failed to ensure staff implemented supervised transfer and toileting resident interventions placed residents at risk of feeling of frustration, falls, and potential injury.
16 fire safety citations on file: 3 on May 15, 2026, 7 on June 18, 2025, 6 on September 13, 2024.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| February 23, 2026 | Fine | $32,646 |
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) | 4.20 | 4.36 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.87 | 0.94 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.52 | 3.80 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.27 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.06 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 39.3% | 45.1% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 42.9% | 45.4% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 4.03 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 4.48 on weekdays and 3.52 on weekends, 21% 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 4.17 in April to June 2025 to 4.20 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 | 4.20 | 0.87 | 4.48 | 3.52 | 0.5% | 0 of 90 | 78 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 4.15 | 0.90 | 4.38 | 3.56 | 1.1% | 0 of 92 | 76 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 4.06 | 0.91 | 4.28 | 3.51 | 1.5% | 0 of 92 | 77 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 4.17 | 0.90 | 4.36 | 3.68 | 0.6% | 0 of 91 | 73 |
| 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 | 4.3 | 14.2 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.4 | 1.0 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.1 | 1.6 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.1 | 2.6 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.8 | 1.3 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.5 | 17.2 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.4 | 4.3 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 12.6 | 15.1 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 26.7 | 19.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 18.7 | 13.4 | 12.0 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Life Care Center of Skagit Valley's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it better than the national rate (59.3% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
59.3% this home
Better than the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · Washington: 71 better, 16 worse
Rate of successful return to home or community from a SNF (risk-standardized discharge to community rate). Higher is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 147 eligible stays.
11.4% 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. 147 eligible stays.
6.1% 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. 72 eligible stays.
68.8% 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. 32 residents counted.
0.0% this home
Median of homes: Washington0.0% · US 0.0%
Percentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay. Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 59 residents counted.
0.0% 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. 59 residents counted.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Median of homes: Washington98.3% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 6 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: SKAGIT VALLEY 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 | 10/25/1995 | |
| Preston, Forrest | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 10/25/1995 | |
| Butner, Nancy | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 09/16/2018 | |
| Nekuda, Vanessa | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 05/03/2024 | |
| Savela, Heather | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 08/01/2023 | |
| Lay, Lisa | Corporate director | Individual | 04/24/2017 | |
| Swanker, Richard | Corporate director | Individual | 01/01/2022 | |
| Cross, Cindy | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/01/1996 | |
| Henry, Terry | Corporate officer | Individual | 08/16/1999 | |
| Lay, Lisa | Corporate officer | Individual | 02/09/2018 | |
| Swanker, Richard | Corporate officer | Individual | 04/01/2011 | |
| Thurmond, Joan | Corporate officer | Individual | 09/22/2000 | |
| Developers Investment Company Inc | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 01/01/2006 | |
| Life Care Centers of America, Inc. | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 01/01/1996 | |
| Skagit Valley Operations, LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 01/01/1996 | |
| Butner, Nancy | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 09/16/2018 | |
| Dhaliwal, Navdeep | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/14/2022 | |
| Fletcher, Todd | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/13/2024 | |
| Nekuda, Vanessa | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 05/03/2024 | |
| Preston, Aubrey | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/13/2024 | |
| Savela, Heather | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 08/01/2023 | |
| Ziegler, James | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/13/2024 | |
| Life Care Centers of America, Inc. | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 03/20/2025 | |
| Skagit Valley Operations, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 08/31/2000 | |
| Dhaliwal, Navdeep | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 03/20/2025 | |
| Preston, Forrest | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 08/31/2000 | |
| Savela, Heather | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 03/20/2025 |
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.