Home / Washington / Issaquah
3725 Providence Point Drive Southeast, Issaquah, WA 98029 · King County · (425) 391-2800
117 certified beds, about 82 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1992
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 505418 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on November 21, 2025, inspectors cited 9 health deficiencies (the Washington average is 15.8, the national average 9.2).
Of 50 health citations since April 2023, 3 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 2 fines totaling $64,574 in the last three years; the largest was $32,880, and the latest is dated February 28, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.81 hours per resident per day, against 4.36 across Washington and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.96 of those hours.
66.1% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Washington average 45.1%).
CMS links it to The Ensign Group, an affiliated group of 344 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 50 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to establish an infection prevention and control program that included developing an antibiotic stewardship program to promote appropriate use of antibiotics and reduce the risk of unnecessary antibiotic use for 2 (Resident 74 & 38) of 3 residents reviewed for unnecessary antibiotics and 2 (September and October 2025) of 3 months of Infection Control (IC) documents reviewed. This failure placed residents at risk for potential adverse outcomes associated with the inappropriate/unnecessary use of antibiotics and placed residents at a greater risk of developing antibiotic resistance. Finings included .<Policy>Review of the revised 06/11/2025, Antibiotic Stewardship facility policy showed the facility would promote appropriate use of antibiotics and reduce the possible adverse side effects with antibiotic use. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to implement a system to ensure Advanced Directives (AD) were in place for 3 of 5 residents (Residents 18, 5 & 30) reviewed for ADs. The facility failed to provide information indicating residents were informed, educated, or offered assistance to formulate an AD. This failure placed residents at risk of losing their right to have their stated preferences/decisions honored regarding medical treatment and end-of-life care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain a homelike environment for 4 of 4 units (Units 100, 200, 300 and 400) reviewed. The failure to provide necessary maintenance and repairs in pantry areas and resident rooms for damaged walls, carpets, and furniture left residents at risk for a diminished homelike environment.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to call report to the hospital regarding the resident's status for 6 of 6 residents (Residents 38, 11, 8, 74, 9, & 22) and provide a written transfer notice to 3 of 6 residents (Residents 8, 74, & 9) reviewed for discharge process. Failure to call report to the receiving hospital placed residents at risk of a break in communication and continuity of care. Failure to ensure written notification was provided to the resident/resident representative, in a language and manner they understood, placed residents at risk for not having an opportunity to make informed decisions about their transfer/discharge rights.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure Preadmission Screening and Resident Review level II (PASRR -federal requirement to help ensure that individuals who have a mental disorder or intellectual disabilities are not inappropriately placed in nursing homes for long term care) coordination was completed prior to admission to the facility for 1 of 5 residents (Resident 28) reviewed for PASRR. Failure to ensure PASRR II completion prior to admission placed residents at risks for unmet mental health care needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure Care Plans (CP) were updated and/or revised, as needed for 2 of 5 sample residents (Residents 22 & 75) reviewed for CPs, and conduct timely Care Conferences (CC) with the residents Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) present to ensure person-centered care for 2 of 5 sample residents (Resident 75 & 28) who were reviewed for CC's. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure physician orders were administered as prescribed for 2 (Residents 9 & 12) of 19 sample residents, failed to obtain physician orders for treatment for 1 (Resident 74) of 19 sample residents, and failed to clarify physician orders for 1 (Resident 30) of 19 sample residents. These failures placed residents at risk for medication errors, delayed treatment, and other negative health outcomes.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADL) for 3 of 5 residents (Residents 22, 38, & 10) reviewed who were dependent on staff for daily cares. The failure to provide assistance with ADLs placed residents at risk for poor hygiene, diminished feeling of self-worth, and a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure medications were stored and labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional standards of practice. The facility failed to: (1) Label medications properly and dispose expired medications timely for 2 of 4 medication carts (Units 100 & 300) reviewed; (2) monitor the medication refrigerator temperature; and (3) secure medications found at the bedside for 1 (Resident 38) of 19 sample residents. These failures placed residents at risk for receiving compromised medications with decreased or no potency, the potential use of unsecured medications, and a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to protect a resident's right to be free from verbal abuse and mistreatment for 1 of 2 (Residents 1) residents reviewed for resident-to-resident incidents. Resident 1 experienced psychological harm when they had a change in their speaking pattern and tone, flat affect, crying, expressions of re-triggering of prior traumas, and feeling distressed after repeated verbal abuse by their roommate that escalated when not addressed timely by staff. This failed practice placed all residents at risk for the potential of verbal abuse, psychological harm, and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to implement their abuse policies and procedures regarding identification of verbal abuse, thorough investigation, protection, preventing further abuse, and timely reporting of abuse and neglect incidents for 4 of 4 residents (Residents 1, 2, 3, & 4) reviewed for resident to resident incidents. These failures placed all residents at risk for unidentified abuse, on-going abuse, and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure resident responsible parties were notified when there was a change in condition or when a resident experienced a fall for 1 (Resident 1) of 3 residents reviewed. These failures violated a resident's right to have their representative involved and informed of any changes in condition.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to: (1) Ensure water temperatures were maintained to remain within the safe temperature of 110 (+/- 10) degrees Fahrenheit (F) as required for 13 of 13 rooms sampled for hot water temperatures (Rooms 328, 306, 330, 324, 114, 428, 202, 124, 408, 422, 102, 228, & 404); (2) ensure hazardous chemicals were kept locked and secured at all times for 2 of 4 nursing units (Unit A & C); and (3) identify potential risks associated with a resident's care needs and environment to decrease the risk of falling for 1 of 6 residents (Resident 64) reviewed for falls. The facility's failure to complete repairs identified to be necessary to the hot water system and sample hot water temperatures in resident rooms placed residents at risk for serious burn or injury caused by scalding and constituted a Immediate Jeopardy (IJ). [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure sufficient qualified nursing staff were available to provide care and services for all facility residents including assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADL) and timliness of call light response in accordance with established clinical standards, Care Plan (CP), and resident preferences. These failures placed residents at risk for unmet care needs and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident meals were stored, prepared, and served in a sanitary manner for 1 of 1 kitchens and 1 of 4 unit pantries (Unit 400). These failures left residents at risk for spoiled or contaminated foods, and food-borne illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain a system to ensure resident grievances were identified, logged, and resolved timely for 4 of 4 residents (Residents 28, 31, 30, 6) reviewed for personal property and living environment. Facility failure to ensure missing personal items were found or replaced and resident environmental concerns were addressed placed residents at risk for missing property, an uncomfortable or less-than-homelike environment, and a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Registered Nurse (RN) responsible for attesting to the accuracy and completeness of resident assessments was knowledgeable of the Minimum Data Set (MDS - an assessment tool) process for 3 of 3 residents (Residents 67, 20, & 45) whose Quarterly MDS assessments were reviewed for accuracy and timeliness. The facility's failure to report accurate MDS data placed residents at risk for violations of the Social Security Act.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure Level 1 Preadmission Screening and Resident Reviews (PASRR - a Serious Mental Illness (SMI)/Intellectual Disability (ID) screening for the need for further assessment for outside resources while in a nursing home environment) were accurate upon admission and updated as needed after a significant change as required for 3 of 5 residents (Residents 28, 45, & 32) reviewed for unnecessary medication. This failure left residents at risk for unassessed mental health needs, and other negative health outcomes. <Facility Policy> According to the PASRR facility policy, revised 01/2023, all residents would undergo a Level 1 PASRR screening prior to admission. The policy showed current residents must undergo a Level 1 PASRR if a significant change in their physical or mental condition was identified. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure Care Plans (CP) were revised and updated to reflect residents' current care needs for 6 of 21 sampled residents (Residents 28, 32, 66, 239, 64, & 189) whose CP were reviewed. This failure left residents at risk for unmet care needs, unsafe provision of care, and a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure 4 of 7 residents (Residents 45, 20, 58, & 239) reviewed for limited Range of Motion (ROM) were evaluated or provided care and services they were assessed to require, including Restorative Nursing Program (RNP). 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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement the necessary care for 2 of 3 sampled residents (Residents 45 & 26) and 1 supplemental resident (Resident 75) reviewed for Tube Feeding (TF) management including: (1) documentation of the amount of TF being administered, (2) weight monitoring, and (3) maintenance and labeling of TF tubing consistent with professional standards of practice. These failures placed residents at risk of not meeting their nutritional requirements, developing TF complications including infection, and a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide meals that accommodated resident food preferences for 2 of 4 sampled residents (Resident 31 & 20) reviewed for preferences. This failure placed residents at risk for weight loss, frustration, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to obtain a consent for the use of an Antidepressant (AD) medication for 1 of 5 residents (Resident 79) reviewed for unnecessary medications. This failure placed Resident 79 at risk for receiving unwanted psychotropic medications, altered level of consciousness, and a decreased quality of life. <Facility Policy> The facility's Psychotropic Medications Policy, revised 01/2023, showed psychotropic medications should only be used after careful evaluation of potential risks and benefits. <Resident 79> According to the 07/02/2024 admission Minimum Data Set (MDS - an assessment tool), Resident 79 had impaired memory and an acute onset change in their mental status, with fluctuating attention and consciousness. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify 1 of 16 residents (Resident 10) who were Medicaid recipients, when their personal fund account balances reached $1800 (i.e. within $200 of the $2,000 resource limit beneficiaries were permitted to possess without their Medicaid coverage being impacted). This failure placed residents at risk for personal financial liability for their care.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide timely assistance to formulate an Advanced Directive (AD - documentation explaining the resident's wishes for care if they were unable to speak for themselves) for 5 of 6 residents (Resident 68, 31, 75, 189, & 6) reviewed for ADs. This failure left residents at risk for unmet healthcare needs, unwanted care, and other negative health outcomes.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to thoroughly investigate incidents for an unwitnessed fall for 1 of 9 residents (Resident 239) whose facility incident report was reviewed to rule out abuse and/or neglect. Facility failure to conduct a complete and thorough investigation as required left residents at risk for unidentified abuse and/or neglect.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide written transfer/discharge notices and/or complete notification to the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman (LTCO) as required for 2 of 4 residents (Residents 32 & 20) reviewed for hospitalization. Failure to provide notification to the resident and/or the resident's representative of the reasons for the discharge in writing or notify the LTCO placed residents at risk for a discharge that did not meet the resident's stated goals for care and preferences, and at risk for preventing the Ombudsman from advocating for residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to complete Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS - an assessment tool) assessments within the regulatory timeframe for 1 of 3 residents (Resident 67) reviewed for resident assessments and timing. The failure to ensure MDS assessments were completed timely placed residents at risk for delayed care planning, unidentified care needs and services, and a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure 3 of 21 residents (Residents 189, 28, & 68) whose Minimum Data Set (MDS - an assessment tool) were completed accurately to reflect the resident's condition at the time of assessment. This failure placed residents at risk for unidentified and/or unmet care needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop and/or implement a comprehensive Care Plan (CP) for 5 of 21 sampled residents (Residents 68, 31, 66, 75, & 189) whose comprehensive CPs were reviewed. The failure to develop comprehensive, individualized CPs with resident-specific goals and/or interventions placed residents at risk for unmet care needs and a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure: Physician's Orders (POs) were followed for 1 (Resident 13) and POs were clarified as needed for 1 (Resident 189) of 21 sampled residents reviewed. These failures placed residents at risk for medication errors, delayed treatment, and adverse outcomes.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADL) for 2 of 3 residents (Residents 32 & 64) reviewed who were dependent on staff for daily cares. The failure to provide required bathing and grooming assistance placed residents at risk for poor hygiene, diminished feeling of self-worth, and a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure activity programs met the needs of each resident for 1 of 3 residents (Resident 64) reviewed for activities. Failure to provide residents with meaningful activities left residents at risk for boredom, frustration, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 4 sampled residents (Resident 12) reviewed for pain management received the necessary treatment, services, and follow-up care to manage their pain. This failure placed residents at risk for avoidable pain and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure medications were stored, labeled, and dated when opened and/or discarded when expired for 3 of 4 medication carts (Unit A, Unit B, & Unit D) and 2 of 2 medication rooms (Unit A & Unit B) observed. The failure to ensure unneeded medications were returned to the pharmacy, medications carts were secured when not in use by a nurse, and medications were not left at the resident's (Resident 240) bedside placed the residents at risk for receiving unauthorized, compromised, and/or ineffective medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe and sanitary environment to help prevent the transmission of communicable diseases. The facility: failed to ensure sharps containers were emptied before they reached an unsafe volume for 3 of 16 resident rooms reviewed (room [ROOM NUMBER], 104, & 416); maintain an environment free of uncleanable surfaces for 1 of 16 resident rooms reviewed (room [ROOM NUMBER]); failed to maintain a Water Management Program (WMP) for 1 of 1 buildings; failed to provide wound care within professional standards of infection control for 1 of 5 residents (Resident 68) reviewed for pressure ulcers; [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident beds did not have gaps that could pose as an entrapment risk or assess the mattress used and/or obtained/purchased separately from the bed frame to ensure they were well-fitting for 1 of 21 residents (Resident 45) whose beds were observed for accident hazards. This failure placed residents at risk for injury, entrapment, or death.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a safe discharge for 1 of 3 residents (Resident 1) reviewed for discharges. The facility failed to ensure the Home Health Agency (HHA) was provided with all required information and documents to initiate home services as expected after discharge and failed to ensure indwelling catheter care education was provided and documented as provided to the Collateral Contact (CC). These failures placed the resident at risk for unmet care needs after discharge, potential for re-hospitalization, distress, and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure 1 (Resident 8) of 3 sampled residents reviewed for Pressure Ulcers (PUs) received the necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote healing, and prevent new ulcers from developing. Failure of the facility to assess skin integrity, follow Care Plan (CP) Interventions and initiate treatment orders caused harm to Resident 8 who developed an avoidable facility acquired right rib PU and a reopened a tailbone PU. Failure of the facility to complete skin assessments, prevent and treat PUs, placed Resident 8 and all other residents at risk for pressure ulcer development, increased risk for infection, and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide care in a manner that promoted resident dignity for 1 of 2 (Resident 74) sampled residents. Facility failure to fully dress Resident 74 left them at risk for feelings of embarrassment, helplessness, and diminished self-worth.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to investigate falls and/or injuries of unknown origin to determine cause, rule out abuse, and implement interventions to prevent reoccurrence for 3 of 18 (Residents 64, 234, & 23) sampled residents reviewed. The failure to initiate and conduct a thorough investigation, initiate appropriate corrective actions, and outline all contributing factors regarding unwitnessed falls (Resident 64), skin tears (Resident 234 & 23), and bruising (Resident 23) placed the residents at risk for recurrent falls with potential for significant injury and unidentified abuse or neglect.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents and/or resident representatives received bed hold notification for 3 of 6 (Residents 7, 58 & 64) residents reviewed for transfers, discharges, and hospitalizations. This failure placed the residents and/or their resident representatives at risk for lack of knowledge regarding their right to hold their bed during transfers, discharges, and hospitalizations.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to accurately assess 2 of 18 (Residents 58 & 1) residents reviewed for Minimum Data Set (MDS - an assessment tool) accuracy. Failure to ensure accurate assessments regarding oral status (Resident 58) and special treatment/procedures (Resident 1) placed residents at risk for unidentified and/or unmet needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) assessments accurately reflected residents' mental health conditions for 1 of 5 (Resident 64) residents reviewed for PASRR. This failure placed residents at risk for inappropriate placement and/or not receiving timely and necessary services to meet their mental health needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure comprehensive Care Plans (CPs) had measurable goals, and were complete, accurate, revised as needed, and implemented for 4 of 18 (Residents 31, 68, 64 & 66) sample residents whose CPs were reviewed. Facility failure to ensure CPs were complete, accurate, revised, and implemented left 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 nursing services were provided within professional standards of nursing for 6 of 18 (Residents 31, 234, 1, 68, 58 & 23) sampled residents related to bed rails, pacemakers (a small device implanted in the chest to regulate heart rate), and the failure to follow or clarify Physician Orders (POs). Findings Included . <Pacemakers> <Resident 31> According to the 03/28/2023 Admissions Minimum Data Set (MDS - an assessment tool) Resident 31 readmitted to the facility on [DATE]. The MDS showed Resident 31 had diagnoses including atrial fibrilation (irregular/rapid heartbeat), heart failure, and high blood pressure. The MDS showed Resident 31 had a pacemaker. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to: implement post-surgical interventions for 1 of 5 (Resident 31) residents reviewed for positioning; treat non-pressure skin in accordance with professional standards and Physicians' Orders (POs) for 2 of 5 (Resident 234 & 23) residents reviewed for non-pressure skin. These failures left residents at risk for avoidable skin issues, discomfort, and pain.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure residents with urinary incontinence received the appropriate treatment and services for 2 of 3 (Residents 23 & 67) residents reviewed for urinary incontinence. Failure to provide treatment and services related to incontinence care placed residents at risk for Urinary Tract Infections (UTIs), continued decline in urinary function with potential loss of bladder control, and skin issues.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate of less than 5 percent (%). Failure of 1of 2 nurses (Staff I) to properly administer 3 of 26 medications for 3 of 7 residents (Resident 46, 32,& 64) observed during medication pass resulted in a medication error rate of 11.11%. This failure placed residents at risk for not receiving the correct dose or receiving less than the intended therapeutic effects of physician ordered medication.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to maintain the commercial cooking equipment for 1 of 1 facility kitchens in a safe operating condition. The failure to conduct maintenance and cleaning of the stove hood per manufacturer's recommendations had the potential to result in fire in the hood due to excessive grease build up which could endanger the residents, staff and/or visitors within the facility. Review of a revised 04/2023 facility Equipment Maintenance policy showed the facility was to properly maintain all equipment to ensure the safety of residents, caregivers, and visitors. This policy showed the Director of Maintenance would oversee the implementation of this policy and maintain records for each piece of equipment, including maintenance schedules, inspections, repairs, and cleaning. [...]
41 fire safety citations on file: 13 on November 21, 2025, 13 on August 1, 2024, 15 on April 25, 2023.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| February 28, 2025 | Fine | $31,694 |
| August 1, 2024 | Fine | $32,880 |
A payment denial means Medicare and Medicaid stopped paying for new admissions for that period.
Hours of care per resident per day, from the payroll records every home sends CMS. Higher means more staff time with each resident.
| Measure | This home | Washington | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 3.81 | 4.36 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.96 | 0.94 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.30 | 3.80 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.29 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.56 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 66.1% | 45.1% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 67.6% | 45.4% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 4.04 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 4.02 on weekdays and 3.30 on weekends, 18% 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 3.78 in April to June 2025 to 3.81 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 | 3.81 | 0.96 | 4.02 | 3.30 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 82 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.82 | 0.91 | 4.03 | 3.27 | 0.2% | 0 of 92 | 80 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.66 | 0.82 | 3.84 | 3.18 | 5.9% | 0 of 92 | 85 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.78 | 1.06 | 3.94 | 3.39 | 17.3% | 0 of 91 | 91 |
| 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 | 10.8 | 14.2 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.9 | 1.6 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 2.6 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 21.5 | 17.2 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.3 | 4.3 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 16.0 | 15.1 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 21.0 | 19.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 24.0 | 13.4 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.9 | 1.3 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.1 | 1.5 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Marianwood Health and Rehabilitation's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it better than the national rate (70.6% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
70.6% 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. 183 eligible stays.
8.3% 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. 187 eligible stays.
5.3% 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. 110 eligible stays.
42.1% this home
Median of homes: Washington61.4% · US 56.6%
Percentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 76 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. 90 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. 90 residents counted.
98.3% 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. 58 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: LUNA VEGA HEALTHCARE LLC. CMS links this home to The Ensign Group, a group of 344 nursing homes averaging 3.2 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Ensign Group Inc | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 09/12/2024 | |
| Burnam, Soon | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 09/12/2024 | |
| Stolarczyk, Lisa | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 05/01/2025 | |
| Burnam, Soon | Corporate officer | Individual | 09/12/2024 | |
| Dittakavi, Neelima | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 03/01/2025 | |
| Stolarczyk, Lisa | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 05/01/2025 | |
| Farnsworth, Stephen | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 05/20/2025 | |
| Dittakavi, Neelima | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/27/2025 | |
| Stolarczyk, Lisa | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 05/01/2025 |
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.