Home / Washington / Edmonds
21008 76th Avenue West, Edmonds, WA 98026 · Snohomish County · (425) 778-0107
80 certified beds, about 77 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 2016
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 505527 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on March 25, 2026, inspectors cited 15 health deficiencies (the Washington average is 15.8, the national average 9.2).
Of 45 health citations since August 2023, 1 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $16,445 in the last three years; the largest was $16,445, and the latest is dated February 8, 2024.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 4.16 hours per resident per day, against 4.36 across Washington and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.83 of those hours.
19.2% 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 45 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure foods were handled appropriately in accordance with professional standards of food safety for 1 of 2 Freezers (Kitchen Freezer), 2 of 3 Refrigerators (Kitchen Walk-in Refrigerator & Olympic Dining Room Refrigerator), 1 of 2 Dry Storage Room (Kitchen Mini Storage), and 1 of 3 Staff (Staff M), reviewed for food services. The failure to label, cover, and discard food items past the use by date and perform hand hygiene placed the residents at risk for foodborne illness (caused by the ingestion of contaminated food or beverages), cross contamination, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop and/or consistently implement care plans for 4 of 16 residents (Residents 11, 24, 4 & 8), reviewed for comprehensive care plans. The failure to develop a care plan for dementia (loss of memory and cognitive functioning that impairs day-to-day life) and implement care plans for call lights, hearing aids and dining assistance placed the 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 respiratory services were provided according to professional standards of practice for 3 of 4 residents (Residents 39, 21 & 83), reviewed for respiratory care. The failure to follow physician orders for oxygen (O2) therapy and to properly store O2 equipment placed the residents at risk for respiratory infections and related complications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure expired medical supplies and medications were discarded for 2 of 2 medication rooms (East & [NAME] Medication Room), and for 2 of 4 medication carts (Cart 3 & Cart 1). In addition, the facility failed to store medications properly for 1 of 2 unit refrigerators (Snohomish Den Refrigerator), reviewed for medication storage and labeling. These failures placed the residents at risk of receiving compromised and ineffective medications, and unauthorized access to medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure there were sufficient dietary support to serve meals on time for 1 of 1 kitchen, reviewed for food service. This failure placed the residents at risk of delayed mealtimes, frustration, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure Contact Precautions (measures put in place to prevent spread of infection by direct or indirect contact with the resident or environment by staff wearing gown and gloves before entering a resident's room or environment) practices were followed for 2 of 5 (Staff H & V), and failed to ensure hand hygiene/glove use practices were followed for 4 of 6 staff (Staff V, L, H & I), reviewed for infection control. These failures placed the residents, visitors, and staff at an increased risk for infection and related complications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure call lights (an alerting device for staff to assist residents in need) were within reach for 2 of 2 residents (Residents 87 & 24), reviewed for accommodation of needs. This failure placed the residents at risk for delayed care, accidents/falls, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to determine on admission if a resident had an advance directive (a written instruction, such as a living will or durable power of attorney for health care) for 1 of 4 residents (Resident 1), reviewed for advance directives. This failure placed the resident and/or their representative at risk of losing their right to have their preferences honored to receive care according to their choice.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a copy of the transfer/discharge notice to the State Long Term Care Ombudsman (an advocate for residents of nursing homes who protect and promote resident rights under federal and state law and regulations) office with the required information for 2 of 4 residents (Residents 8 & 9), reviewed for hospitalizations. This failure placed the residents at risk for not having opportunities to make informed decisions about their transfer.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a Significant Change in Status Assessment (SCSA) Minimum Data Set (MDS - an assessment tool) was completed for 1 of 16 residents (Resident 8), reviewed for significant change of condition. The failure to complete an SCSA within 14 days of a significant change of condition placed the resident at risk for delayed care planning, unmet care needs, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide services to maintain hearing methods to carry out the Activities of Daily Living (ADL) for 1 of 1 resident (Resident 4), reviewed for communication. This failure placed the resident at risk of not being able to hear and/or communicate and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure feeding assistance was provided for 1 of 1 resident (Resident 8), reviewed for activities of daily living. This failure placed the resident at risk of unmet care needs and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure clinical records were complete and accurate for 1 of 4 residents (Resident 13), reviewed for advance directives. This failure placed the resident at risk for medical complications and unmet care needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the COVID-19 (a highly transmissible infectious virus that causes respiratory illness and in severe cases can cause difficulty breathing and could result in impairment or death) vaccine was offered and/or provided for 2 of 5 residents (Residents 9 & 32), reviewed for immunizations. This failure placed the residents at risk for contracting the COVID-19 virus and related complications.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the survey result binder included the results for 4 of 4 complaint surveys (03/14/2025, 04/07/2025, 05/14/2025 & 07/10/2025) that resulted in citations since the last annual survey. This failure prevented residents, residents' representatives and visitors from exercising their right to review past survey results and the facility's plan of correction.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a fall incident was thoroughly investigated for 1 of 3 residents (Resident 1), reviewed for abuse investigations. This failure placed the residents at risk for repeated incidents, unidentified abuse, and inappropriate corrective actions.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to revise an elopement care plan for 1 of 1 resident (Residents 1), reviewed for care plan revision. This failure placed the resident at risk for additional elopements, unmet care needs, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide the necessary supervision resulting to an elopement for 1 of 1 resident (Resident 1), reviewed for accident hazards. This failure placed the resident at risk for additional elopements, injuries and pain.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure adequate monitoring were conducted for use of diuretics (medications that help move extra fluid and salt out of the body) for 2 of 7 residents (Residents 3 & 26), anticoagulants (medication that prevent blood clot) for 3 of 7 residents (Residents 26, 28 & 10), and antibiotic (medication that treats infections) for 1 of 7 residents (Resident 11), reviewed for unnecessary medications. These failures placed the residents at risk for receiving unnecessary medications, adverse side effects, and related complications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the dishwasher temperature was checked and the sanitizing solution was tested routinely in accordance with professional standard for food service safety for 1 of 1 kitchen, reviewed for food services. These failures placed the residents at risk for food borne illness and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP- precaution to protect residents from Multidrug-Resistant Organism [MDRO-a germ that is resistant to medications that treat infections]) was followed for Resident 119 and failed to ensure clean linen were handled properly for room [ROOM NUMBER]. In addition, the facility failed to properly disinfect glucometers (a device to measure how much sugar is in the blood) for 2 of 2 residents (Residents 121 & 114) and sanitize medical equipment for 2 of 2 residents (Residents 211 & 3), reviewed for infection control. These failures placed the residents, visitors, and staff at an increased risk for infection and related complications.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to inform the resident and/or their representative before administering psychotropic (mind altering) medications for 1 of 5 residents (Resident 10), reviewed for unnecessary medications. This failure placed the resident and/or their representative at risk of not being fully informed of the risks and benefits before making decisions about their medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a comfortable bed sheet was provided for 1 of 1 resident (Resident 10), reviewed for accommodation of needs. This failure placed the resident at risk for unmet care needs, insufficient sleep or discomfort, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure an advance directive (a written instruction, such as a living will or Durable Power of Attorney [DPOA] for health care-a document delegating to an agent the authority to make health care decisions in case the individual delegating the authority subsequently becomes incapable to do so) was obtained and completed for 1 of 10 residents (Resident 4), reviewed for advance directives. This failure placed the resident and their representative at risk for losing their right to have their preferences honored to receive or refuse/discontinue care according to their choice.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a written transfer/discharge notice to the resident and/or their representative for 1 of 1 resident (Residents 27), reviewed for hospitalization. This failure placed the resident and/or their representative at risk for not having an opportunity to make informed decisions about transfers/discharges.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure bed hold (the opportunity to reserve a resident's current occupied bed while out of the facility to ensure their room was available when ready to return) notice was offered/provided for 1 of 1 resident (Resident 27), reviewed for hospitalization. This failure placed the resident or their representative at risk for lack of knowledge regarding the right to hold their bed while in the hospital.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to accurately assess 2 of 21 residents (Residents 10 & 11), reviewed for Minimum Data Set (MDS-an assessment tool). The failure to ensure accurate assessments regarding antibiotic (medication to treat infection) use and surgical wound care treatment placed the residents at risk for unidentified and/or unmet care needs, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure 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) Level I was completed for 1 of 7 residents (Resident 11), reviewed for PASARR screening. This failure placed the resident at risk for not receiving the care and services appropriate for their needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify the State PASARR (Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review-an assessment used to identify people [resident] referred to nursing facilities with Serious Mental Illness [SMI], intellectual disabilities, or related conditions are not inappropriately placed in nursing facility for long term care) Coordinator after a significant change in status occurred for 1 of 7 residents (Resident 27), reviewed for PASARR. This failure placed the resident at risk for unmet care needs and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop and/or implement care plans for 2 of 19 residents (Residents 11 & 20), reviewed for care planning. The failure to develop person-centered care plans for skin impairment, antibiotic (medication that treats infection) use, urostomy (a surgical procedure that creates an [ostomy-artificial opening] to drain urine), vision, pain, and nail care placed the 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 necessary assistance with nail care for 1 of 1 resident (Resident 20), reviewed for Activities of Daily Living (ADL) care. This failure placed the resident at risk for poor hygiene, decreased self-esteem, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure physician orders were implemented and followed in accordance with professional standards of practice for 1 of 1 resident (Resident 11), reviewed for quality of care. This failure placed the resident at risk for not receiving necessary care services, unmet care needs, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain, label/date, and properly store oxygen tubing, nasal cannula (flexible tubing that sits inside the nose and delivers oxygen), and nebulizer (device used to administer medication in the form of a mist that is inhaled into the lungs) mask for 3 of 7 residents (Residents 5, 32 & 120), reviewed for respiratory care. In addition, the facility failed to follow Resident 120's physician orders for oxygen use. These failures placed the residents at risk for unmet care needs, respiratory infections, and related complications.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a required assistive device (use of gait belt) and hands on contact were provided during therapy for 1 of 3 residents (Resident 1), reviewed for falls. This failure placed the resident at risk for fall with injury, unmet care needs, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 3 residents (Resident 1) reviewed for abuse investigations was free from misappropriation of property. Resident 1, who had impaired thinking and lacked the ability of a reasonable person to provide informed consent for either purchases made by staff member or designations to bank accounts, experienced harm when they suffered a substantial loss of monetary funds after staff accessed their financial accounts for personal gain without permission and placed other residents at risk for financial exploitation.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure allegations of abuse were thoroughly investigated for 4 of 4 residents (Residents 4, 5, 6 and 7), reviewed for abuse investigations for misappropriation of property. Residents 4, 5, 6, and 7 who had impaired thinking and lacked the ability to provide information about their bank accounts or purchases made using their accounts, had representatives responsible for their finances were not included in the facility's abuse investigations. This failure placed the residents at risk for financial exploitation.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement written abuse policies and procedures related to misappropriation of resident property for 1 of 3 residents (Residents 1), reviewed for abuse investigations. This failure caused Resident 1 to lose a substantial amount of money when staff used their financial accounts for personal gain and placed other residents at risk for misappropriation of property.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure food items in the refrigerator were labeled and dated. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure the kitchen thermometer was properly sanitized between use for 1 of 1 kitchen. These failures placed the residents at risk for cross contamination, food borne illness (caused by the ingestion of contaminated food or beverages), and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure allegation of abuse was reported to the State Agency within the required timeframe for 1 of 3 residents (Resident 35) reviewed for abuse. This failure placed the resident at risk for potential unidentified mistreatment and lack of protection due to unrecognized abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to identify abuse allegation and failed to ensure the abuse allegation was thoroughly investigated for 1 of 3 residents (Resident 35) reviewed for abuse investigation. This failure placed the resident at risk for repeated incidents, unidentified abuse, and inappropriate corrective actions.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to accurately assess 2 of 6 residents (Resident 40 and 4) reviewed for Minimum Data Set (MDS- an assessment tool). The failure to ensure accurate assessments regarding vision and discharge status placed the residents at risk for unidentified and/or unmet care needs and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement comprehensive care plans for 2 of 11 residents (Residents 2 & 308) reviewed for comprehensive care plans. The failure to develop and implement comprehensive care plans placed the residents at risk for unmet care needs and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure services provided met professional standards of practice for Lidocaine 4% patch (pain medication) administration for 1 of 3 residents (Resident 3) observed for medication administration. This failure placed the resident at risk for medication errors and adverse outcomes.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure physician orders (POs) were checked for drug allergies/contraindications prior to medication administration for 1 of 5 residents (Resident 7) reviewed for unnecessary medications. This failure placed the resident at risk for allergic reactions, adverse side effects, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure standard infection prevention and control precautions were implemented to prevent the transmission of a highly transmissible disease, Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA, a bacteria resistant to many of the antibiotics [used to treat infections]) by not implementing appropriate Transmission Based Precautions (TBP, safe guards put in place to help prevent the spread of disease) for 1 of 1 resident (Resident 27) reviewed for infection control. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure proper hand hygiene practices were followed during pressure ulcer dressing change for 1 of 1 resident (Resident 309) reviewed for pressure ulcers. [...]
30 fire safety citations on file: 3 on March 25, 2026, 9 on December 18, 2024, 18 on August 28, 2023.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| February 8, 2024 | Fine | $16,445 |
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) | 4.16 | 4.36 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.83 | 0.94 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.57 | 3.80 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.40 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.93 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 19.2% | 45.1% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 21.4% | 45.4% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.37 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 4.40 on weekdays and 3.57 on weekends, 19% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.4% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 4.24 in April to June 2025 to 4.16 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 | 4.16 | 0.83 | 4.40 | 3.57 | 0.4% | 0 of 90 | 77 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 4.21 | 0.90 | 4.45 | 3.61 | 0.4% | 0 of 92 | 75 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 4.46 | 0.91 | 4.73 | 3.78 | 1.8% | 0 of 92 | 71 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 4.24 | 0.72 | 4.51 | 3.56 | 0.4% | 0 of 91 | 75 |
| 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 | 17.2 | 14.2 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.8 | 1.6 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.4 | 2.6 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.5 | 1.3 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 14.8 | 17.2 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 8.4 | 4.3 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.0 | 15.1 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 16.4 | 19.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 13.1 | 13.4 | 12.0 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Pine Ridge Post Acute's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it better than the national rate (62.9% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
62.9% 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. 485 eligible stays.
8.8% 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. 465 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. 291 eligible stays.
53.9% 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. 182 residents counted.
0.8% this home
Median of homes: Washington0.0% · US 0.0%
Percentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay. Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 235 residents counted.
4.9% 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. 235 residents counted.
100.0% this home
Median of homes: Washington98.3% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 166 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: PINE RIDGE 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 | |
| Bhogal, Neeta | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/13/2025 | |
| Habtu, Netsanet | 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 | |
| Tappero, James | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 11/18/2024 | |
| Edmonds 21008 Realty LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 08/01/2024 | |
| Providence Administrative Consulting Services Inc | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 08/01/2024 | |
| Bhogal, Neeta | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/22/2026 | |
| Tappero, James | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/22/2026 |
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.