Home / Washington / Toppenish
802 West Third Avenue, Toppenish, WA 98948 · Yakima County · (509) 865-3955
75 certified beds, about 72 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1968
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 505096 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on November 21, 2025, inspectors cited 8 health deficiencies (the Washington average is 15.8, the national average 9.2).
None of its 31 health citations since September 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 3.71 hours per resident per day, against 4.36 across Washington and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.64 of those hours.
28.3% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Washington average 45.1%).
CMS links it to PACS Group, an affiliated group of 275 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 31 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure staff followed infection control standards of practice regarding implementation of personal protective equipment (PPE, protective equipment designed to safeguard individuals and reduce the risk of contracting or spreading infectious diseases) with residents on Transmission Base Precautions (TBP, safeguards within a room or facility that are put in place to help prevent the spread of diseases) to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 for 5 of 5 staff (Staff I, P, Q, J and K), reviewed for infection control practices. This failure placed residents, staff, and visitors at an increased risk of exposure to cross contamination (harmful spread of diseases) and transmission of infectious diseases during a COVID-19 outbreak.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the notification to the resident's representative (RR) of changes in the resident's mental/psychosocial status (the impact on an individual's emotional, social and environmental factors affecting their mental health and well-being) and/or the need to alter treatment for 1 of 2 residents (Resident 61) reviewed for notification of changes. This failure placed the resident at risk of not having their RR involved in the health care decision making process and increased the risk of the RR from making an informed decision regarding the resident's care.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to have a system in place to ensure Residents were aware of how to file a grievance (a formal complaint by a resident or resident representative [RR]) and who the facility's Grievance officer was, these concerns were voiced in Resident Council (a formal meeting for facility residents to communicate preferences and concerns) for 3 of 5 residents (Resident 26, 39, and 75) who expressed they were unaware of how to file a grievance or who the facility Grievance Officer was. These failures placed residents at risk for overall dissatisfaction with their lives and unresolved concerns.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to develop comprehensive resident centered care plans for 2 of 6 residents (Residents 30 and 42) reviewed for care planning. This failure placed residents at risk for unmet care needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide the necessary care and services to ensure residents dependent on staff received consistent oral care and nail care for 3 of 3 residents (Residents 1, 3, and 42) reviewed for activities of daily living (ADLs) care provided for dependent residents. This failure to receive adequate, consistent grooming and oral care according to the residents' care plan placed the residents at risk for unmet care needs, impaired skin integrity, and embarrassment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide respiratory care in accordance with accepted standards of practice, regarding a resident's continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP, a device that uses mild pressure to keep the airway open when asleep) machine for 1 of 2 residents (Resident 30) reviewed for respiratory care and treatment. This failure placed the resident at risk of respiratory status complications and unmet care needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a cognitively impaired resident representative (RR) was offered the pneumococcal immunizations (a vaccine that protects against pneumococcal infections that can lead to serious lung infections), given the opportunity with refusal or acceptance of the vaccine on behalf of the resident, nor receive education on the risk/benefits of the vaccine for 1 of 5 residents (Resident 61) reviewed for immunizations. This failure placed the resident at an increased risk for a contagious disease without the RR having the opportunity to make an informed decision in the refusal or acceptance of the pneumococcal vaccine.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents and/or their representative were offered/educated on the COVID-19 (an infectious disease causing respiratory illness with symptoms including cough, fever, new or worsening malaise, headache, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, loss of taste or smell, and in severe cases, difficulty breathing that could result in severe impairment or death) immunization (the action of taking a vaccine for a particular infectious disease) for 1 of 5 sampled residents (Resident 61) reviewed for immunization status. This failure placed the resident and/or their representative at risk of making an uninformed decision and resident contracting the COVID-19 virus.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the state agency was notified about an elopement for 1 of 1 resident (Resident 1) reviewed for elopements. This failure placed the resident at risk for potential endangerment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide a safe, comfortable environment for 3 of 6 rooms (Rooms 27, 28 and 29) for maintenance repairs. This failure placed residents at risk of injury and a diminished quality of life by not maintaining a safe and functional environment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents environment remained free of accident/hazards with: A) a resident that required a smoking apron for safety when smoking for 1 of 2 residents (Resident 29) reviewed for accident/hazard of smoking, B) the securement of compressed oxygen cylinder storage for 1 of 2 storage rooms (East/West storage room) reviewed for accident/hazards of oxygen cylinder storage, and C) that toxic cleaning chemicals were safely stored away from residents for 2 of 3 hallways (East/West and Central Hall) reviewed for accidents/hazards of chemicals. This failure placed residents at an increased risk for avoidable accidents, significate injury, and unmet care needs.
Inspectors wrote<Kitchen> An observation and interview on 10/24/2024 at 12:20 PM, showed Staff O, Cook, and Staff N, Dietary Aide, starting the lunch meal serve out, 20 minutes after the posted lunch meal start time. The first cart of lunch trays was sent out of the kitchen at 12:28 PM, the second at 12:36 PM, the third at 12:45 PM, and the fourth at 12:54 PM. At 1:01 PM, Staff O informed Staff M, Dietary Manager, that there were not enough pellet inserts (a warmed disc placed in the base of a plate holder to retain heat) for the plate warmers. There were six lunch meals that were placed in the meal tray cart that did not have pellet inserts, including the surveyor test tray. Staff M stated they frequently ran out of silverware and pellets for the warmers. They stated they go out on the meal trays but don't come back. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure periodic testing of sanitizing agents used for proper sanitation of food preparation surfaces in accordance with professional standards for food service safety, appropriate labeling of open foods, and that food delivery carts were clean, for 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for safe food service. This failure placed residents, staff, and visitors that ate from the facility's kitchen at risk for food borne illnesses and the spread of infectious diseases.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents that required assistance with eating received a dignified meal service, related to timely assistance with meals, for 2 of 4 residents (Residents 14 and 3) reviewed for dignity. This failure placed the residents at risk for unmet care needs and a deterioration in their quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to review and validate the Preadmission Screening and Resident Reviews ([PASARR], an assessment to ensure individuals with serious mental illness [SMI] or intellectual/developmental disabilities [ID/DD] are not inappropriately placed in nursing homes for long term care) were corrected on/after residents admission to the facility and had the required Level II referral sent if residents had a positive Level I PASARR for 2 of 8 residents (Resident 29 and 56) reviewed for PASARR. This failure placed the residents at risk for not receiving the care and services appropriate for their needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement an effective discharge planning process that addressed the resident's goals and needs, that involved the resident and the interdisciplinary team [(IDT) a group of healthcare professionals from different disciplines to help residents receive the care they need] for 1 of 3 residents (Resident 264) reviewed for discharge planning process. The failure to develop and implement a discharge plan consistent with the resident's needs and expressed discharge goals, placed the resident at risk for decreased self-worth and dissatisfaction with their living situation. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents received treatment and care of their type two diabetes mellitus (a disease that causes inadequate control of the body's blood levels of sugar, which can lead to abnormally high or low levels of the body's blood sugar) in accordance with professional standards of practice for 1 of 2 residents (Resident 218) reviewed for insulin (a medication that assists in control of blood sugar levels) therapy. This failure placed residents at an increased risk for unmet care needs, emergent situations, and poor health outcomes.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to identify and utilize an implanted bladder stimulator device [(InterStim) - an implantable device that treats urinary incontinence and overactive bladder by sending electrical pulses to the sacral nerves] used to treat urinary incontinence for 1 of 2 residents (Resident 5) reviewed for urinary incontinence (a loss of bladder control or involuntary urination). This failure placed the resident at risk for poor self-esteem related to dignity, skin impairments, continued urinary incontinence, and other health complications.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents who were trauma survivors received culturally competent, trauma informed care, complete with identified experiences and preferences regarding potential triggers (a stimulus that could prompt a recall of a previous traumatic event even if the stimulus itself is not traumatic or frightening) that may cause re-traumatization (a reliving of the traumatic experience) for 1 of 4 residents (Resident 29) reviewed for trauma informed care. This failure placed the resident at risk for unidentified triggers and re-traumatization.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate of less than five percent for 2 of 5 residents (Residents 218 and 1) observed during 27 medication administration opportunities that resulted in an error rate of 7.41 percent. This failure placed the residents at risk of not receiving the full therapeutic effect of the medication and potential adverse side effects.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to properly dispose of kitchen refuse for 1 of 1 kitchen, reviewed for refuse disposal. This failure placed the facility at risk for attracting insects, rodents, and an unsanitary environment.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure a resident had the cognitive capacity to understand the nature and implication of entering into a binding arbitration agreement used to settle disputes without a jury trial for 1 of 3 residents (Resident 39) reviewed for arbitration. This failure placed the resident at risk for a lack of understanding of the legal contract they had signed and their right to make a choice for a jury trial in the event of a dispute with the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to report allegations of potential abuse and/or neglect to their State Agency, for 1 of 5 residents (Residents 13), reviewed for abuse/neglect. This failure placed the resident at risk for unidentified abuse/neglect, and the potential continued exposure to abuse and/or neglect.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to conduct a thorough investigation into an allegation of abuse for 1 of 2 residents (Resident 13), reviewed for abuse and neglect. This failure placed the resident at risk for unidentified abuse, unmet care needs, and the potential continued exposure to abuse and/or neglect.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to meet the requirements for a facility-initiated discharge for 1 of 2 residents (Resident 53), reviewed for discharge requirements. Resident 53 was not allowed to remain a resident in the facility after requesting a therapeutic leave to visit their sick spouse. This failed practice placed the resident at risk for homelessness, unmet care needs, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a written notice to the resident and their representative of the facility's intention and justification for the discharge of 1 of 2 residents (Resident 53) reviewed for facility-initiated discharges. Additionally, the facility failed to send a copy of the notice of transfer or discharge to the representative of the Office of the State Long-Term Care (LTC) Ombudsman (a person that advocates for residents in nursing homes). This failed practice disallowed the resident and/or their representative an opportunity to fully understand the rationale and resident rights associated with the discharge. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a written bed-hold notice at the time of transfer or within 24 hours of transfer to the hospital for 2 of 3 Residents (Residents 11 and 205), reviewed for hospitalization. This failure placed the residents and/or their representative at risk for a lack of knowledge regarding their right to hold their bed while hospitalized .
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to prepare palatable meals for 4 of 9 sample residents (Residents 3, 6,11, and 26) reviewed for food service. This failure placed the residents at risk for a diminished dining experience, dissatisfaction with food served, and a potential for less than adequate nutritional intake leading to weight loss.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to serve preferred foods and meal substitutions for 4 of 6 residents (Residents 3, 9, 20, and 32) reviewed for food and nutrition services. This failure placed the residents at risk for decreased dietary intake, unintended weight loss, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to provide Specialized Rehabilitative (Rehab) Services according to physician's orders for 1 of 2 residents (Resident 41) reviewed for therapy services. The failure to provide speech therapy (ST) services to Resident 41 placed them at risk for a decline in physical and functional mobility, deterioration of muscle strength and a potential delay in the resident's progression towards regaining their normal eating ability.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE - enhanced prevention strategies to prevent spread of disease) including the use of an N95 mask (a respiratory protective device designed to achieve a very close facial fit and filtration of airborne particles), gown, gloves, and eye protection/face shield during facility wide testing for COVID-19 (an infectious disease causing respiratory illness with symptoms including cough, fever, new or worsening malaise, headache, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, loss of that or smell, and in severe cases difficulty breathing that could result in severe impairment or death) for 1 of 1 resident (Resident 4), reviewed for COVID-19 testing. [...]
29 fire safety citations on file: 3 on November 21, 2025, 20 on October 30, 2024, 6 on September 25, 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) | 3.71 | 4.36 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.64 | 0.94 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.36 | 3.80 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.47 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.60 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 28.3% | 45.1% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 60.0% | 45.4% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.96 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 3.85 on weekdays and 3.36 on weekends, 13% 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 3.56 in April to June 2025 to 3.71 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 | 3.71 | 0.64 | 3.85 | 3.36 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 72 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.65 | 0.58 | 3.73 | 3.45 | 1.0% | 0 of 92 | 72 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.62 | 0.61 | 3.69 | 3.47 | 0.5% | 0 of 92 | 71 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.56 | 0.79 | 3.65 | 3.34 | 3.2% | 0 of 91 | 68 |
| 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 | 8.7 | 14.2 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.4 | 1.0 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.4 | 1.6 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.8 | 2.6 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.9 | 1.3 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 26.0 | 17.2 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.5 | 4.3 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 21.1 | 15.1 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 20.9 | 19.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 7.1 | 13.4 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.7 | 1.3 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.9 | 1.5 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Linden Post Acute's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (44.5% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
44.5% 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. 88 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. 77 eligible stays.
7.5% 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. 49 eligible stays.
61.4% 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. 44 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. 61 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. 61 residents counted.
86.7% 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. 30 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: LINDEN SNF HEALTHCARE LLC. CMS links this home to PACS Group, a group of 275 nursing homes averaging 2.9 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Truist Bank | 5% or greater security interest | Organization | 08/01/2024 | |
| Apt, Frederick | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 05/14/2024 | |
| Coupal, Camille | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 08/01/2024 | |
| Emmans, Paul | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 08/01/2024 | |
| Jallow, Amadou | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 08/01/2024 | |
| Jergensen, Joshua | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 05/14/2024 | |
| Mitchell, John | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 05/14/2024 | |
| Providence Administrative Consulting Services Inc | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 08/01/2024 | |
| Toppenish 802 Realty LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 08/01/2024 | |
| Emmans, Paul | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/28/2026 | |
| Jallow, Amadou | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/28/2026 |
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.