Home / Washington / Seattle
4831 35th Avenue Southwest, Seattle, WA 98126 · King County · (206) 937-3700
215 certified beds, about 185 residents a day · Non profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1968
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 505182 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on April 13, 2026, inspectors cited 17 health deficiencies (the Washington average is 15.8, the national average 9.2).
Of 65 health citations since October 2023, 4 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists 3 fines totaling $129,568 in the last three years; the largest was $76,615, and the latest is dated June 10, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 4.29 hours per resident per day, against 4.36 across Washington and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 1.23 of those hours.
51.5% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Washington average 45.1%).
CMS links it to Providence Health & Services, an affiliated group of 8 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 65 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure 3 of 10 residents (Residents 94, 24 & 3) and 1 supplemental resident (Resident 47) reviewed for accidents were assessed for the ability to smoke safely and to address storage of smoking materials (Residents 94 & 24), were provided an assistive device to prevent accidents (Resident 3), and were provided an environment free of unsecured chemicals (Resident 47). Additionally, the facility failed to ensure the environment was free of unsecured chemicals and sharps in shower rooms for 2 of 10 units (4 South & 5 North) reviewed. These failures placed residents at risk for burns, accidental removal of implanted devices, exposure to chemicals and sharps, and other negative health outcomes.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure expired medications and expired medical supplies were discarded timely for 2 of 5 medication storage rooms (Saint [NAME] Residence -SJR Medication Storage Room & 2 North Medication Storage Room) and 2 of 6 medication carts (4 South Medication Cart & 5 North Medication Cart B) reviewed for medication storage, and failed to ensure medications were properly secured in 4 of 10 units (4 South, 3 South, 5 Central, and 2 North) reviewed for medications at the bedside. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure food was stored and served under sanitary conditions for 1 of 1 main kitchen and ensure food was prepared and served in a sanitary manner and following residents' dietary needs in 1 of 6 neighborhood kitchens (Saint [NAME] Residence/SJR). The failure to cover refrigerated and frozen food, ensure staff secured their hair and performed hand hygiene, placed residents at risk for cross-contamination, foodborne illness and the spread of infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to: ensure Transmission Based Precautions (TBP - a set of infection control practices used to prevent the spread of infectious agents in addition to standard precautions) were implemented or followed for 2 of 2 residents (Resident 212 & 33) and 3 supplemental residents (Residents 12, 156, & 157) reviewed for TBP and/or exposed to respiratory symptoms; failed to ensure staff used appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE - disposable barriers such as gloves and gowns used to prevent exposure to infectious materials) for 1 of 2 residents (Residents 201) reviewed for Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP - an infection control intervention designed to reduce the transmission of multidrug resistant organisms); [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were provided care and services in a dignified manner for 2 (Residents 202 & 3) of 36 sample residents and 2 supplemental residents. The failure to: ensure catheter bags (bags that collect urine from tubing placed in the body to assist with urinary drainage) were covered to obscure their contents (Resident 202 & 3) and ensure 1 staff (Staff D - Licensed Practical Nurse) sat when providing feeding assistance to residents, placed residents at risk for undignified care and a diminished sense of self-worth.<Facility Policy>According to the facility's revised April 2025 Standards of Care policy, staff would ensure urinary catheters were covered to promote residents' privacy and dignity. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement a system to ensure Advanced Directives (AD) were in place for 3 (Residents 188, 189, & 7) of 8 residents reviewed for ADs. 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents' medication regimens were free of chemical restraints for 1 of 6 residents (Resident 3) reviewed for unnecessary medications. Staff failure to ensure appropriate indication for use, monitor residents for target behaviors, provide nonpharmacological interventions, and obtain consent for psychotropic medications placed residents at risk for receiving unnecessary medications and other negative health outcomes.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to thoroughly investigate, notify provider of changes in condition, implement appropriate fall interventions, and rule out abuse/neglect for 2 of 11 sampled residents (Resident 3 & 27) reviewed for investigations. The failure to conduct thorough investigations left residents at risk for unidentified abuse and/or neglect, recurrence of events, and a decreased quality of life.<Policy>According to the facility's 10/2025 Fall Prevention and Response policy the facility would investigate falls, including interviewing residents, staff, and others about the nature of the falls, and assess the resident for injuries sustained in the event. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR - a process to determine if a potential nursing home resident had mental health/intellectual disability needs which required further assessment/treatment) level 2 referrals were followed up on timely for 1 of 6 residents (Resident 16) whose PASRRs were reviewed. This failure placed residents at risk of 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 Care Plans (CPs) were updated and/or revised as needed for 2 of 35 sample residents (Residents 82 & 18) reviewed, and failed to conduct care conferences for residents with their resident representative and the applicable Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) members for 2 of 7 residents (Resident 58 and 214) reviewed for care planning. Failure to ensure CPs were updated and to offer care conferences to reflect current care needs left residents at risk for unmet care needs, delay in treatments, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to: Ensure Physician's Orders (POs) were clarified and followed, to have parameters for pain medications, and medications given within ordered parameters for 2 of 6 sample residents (Residents 7 & 17), Staff failed to sign for narcotics from the narcotic ledger when given, and count the narcotics effectively each shift for 1 of 5 medication carts reviewed (Four south unit). These failures placed residents at risk for medication errors, unmet care needs, narcotic diversion, and other negative health outcomes.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), related to cleanliness and grooming for 3 of 7 sample residents (Residents 39, 189, & 156) reviewed for ADLs. Facility failure to provide residents who were dependent on staff for assistance with nail care (Resident 39 and 189), and bathing (Resident 156) placed the residents at risk for poor hygiene, embarrassment and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility: Failed to ensure residents' skin was assessed, documented, monitored, and treated as required for 2 of 4 residents (Residents 188 & 214) reviewed for non-pressure skin. These failures placed all residents at risk for delay in treatment, worsening of condition, and decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure pain management was provided to residents consistent with professional standards of practice including the failure to assess pain medication effectiveness for as needed (PRN) pain medications and failure to assess residents pain utilizing pain assessments and pain scales for 2 of 6 residents (Resident 82 & 52 ) reviewed for pain management. These failures placed residents at risk for experiencing untreated pain, possible side effects, and a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate of less than 5 percent (%). Failure of 1 of 5 nurses (Staff W - Long Term Care Registered Nurse) to properly administer 2 of 29 medications for 1 (Resident 56) of 6 residents observed during medication pass, resulted in a medication error rate of 6.9%. This failure placed residents at risk for adverse side effects and/or not receiving prescribed medications as ordered.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure specialized rehabilitative services were provided as assessed to be required for 3 of 5 sample residents (Residents 188, 189, & 156) reviewed for rehabilitation with skilled therapy services. This failure prevented residents from attaining, maintaining, or restoring their highest practicable level of physical, mental, functional, and psycho-social well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure nurses aides completed required annual training for 2 of 5 nurses aides (Staff J, Certified Nursing Assistant - CNA, and Staff K, CNA) reviewed for annual training. The failure to ensure CNAs completed 12 hours of annual training placed residents at risk for care deficits and other negative health outcomes.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program to prevent the transmission of communicable diseases. The facility failed to implement and/or follow Transmission Based Precaution (TBP) protocol for 4 of 16 residents (Residents 1, 2, 3, & 4) reviewed for infection control related to COVID-19 (Coronavirus Disease of 2019, an infectious respiratory disease caused by a virus). This failure placed residents at risk of infection and related complications.<Facility Policy>The facility's 08/2024 Transmission-Based Precautions (TBP) policy showed the facility would implement Aerosol Contact Precautions (ACP) for residents with confirmed or suspected infections from COVID-19, which spreads through airborne and droplet routes through coughing, sneezing, talking, and through the provision of care. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to protect a resident's right to be free from abuse for 8 of 12 residents (Residents 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, & 8) reviewed for abuse. Resident 1 experienced physical harm when Staff D (Certified Nursing Assistant - CNA) grabbed the resident's arms which left fingerprint bruises and a nail inflicted skin tear;after the incident as demonstrated by mood changes including frequent crying, increased behaviors of distress, multiple days of refused care and medications, and repetitive verbalized statements of fear of being physically hurt. These failures placed residents at risk of verbal, physical, mental, psychological abuse, and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to implement the facility's abuse policy for 1 of 2 residents (Resident 1) reviewed for injuries of unknown origin. The failure to identify resident injuries as potential abuse, placed residents at risk for further abuse, injuries, and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to identify potential abuse, initiate an investigation to rule out abuse, and implement interventions to prevent ongoing abuse for 1 of 3 residents (Resident 1) reviewed. The failure to investigate an injury of unknown origin, a sign of potential abuse, prevented the facility from protecting other residents from abuse, neglect, and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to permit 1 of 3 residents (Resident 1) reviewed for hospitalization to return to the facility after a facility-initiated transfer to the emergency room (ER). Resident 1 experienced psychological harm when they experienced a two-week long hospitalization delay while another nursing facility could be arranged for discharge, anxiety related to being placed in an unfamiliar environment, expressions of fear of homelessness and hopelessness when the facility failed to permit the Resident 1 to return to the facility and resume residency when they were medically cleared by the hospital to discharge.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide an environment that was free from hazards for 2 of 4 residents (Resident 2 and 3) reviewed for accidents. The failure of staff to intervene when Resident 2 was using cannabis (an illegal drug that causes an altered mental status) through a vape pen (a device that heats the drug to a consistency to inhale through the lungs) and allowed secondary exposure of cannabis to the roommate, staff, and placed residents at risk of harm from fire, injury, exposure to an illegal drug, and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to protect a resident's right to be free from abuse for 1 of 5 sample residents (Residents 110) reviewed for abuse. Resident 110 experienced psychological harm when they were touched inappropriately without consent by a staff member and continued to ruminate on the incident. This failure placed other residents at risk of sexual, verbal, and mental abuse, psychological harm, and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure food and drinks served to residents were prepared and distributed under sanitary conditions for 1 of 1 facility kitchens, and 2 of 6 unit kitchenettes. The failure to maintain kitchen equipment in a sanitary manner, complete Hand Hygiene (HH - washing or sanitizing hands) as required, sanitize kitchen thermometers appropriately, and ensure Certified Nursing Assistant's (CNA's) hair was secured when preparing meals in unit kitchenettes placed residents at risk for contaminated/spoiled food, foodborne illness, and other negative health outcomes.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide care and services in a manner that maintained and promoted resident rights and dignity for 10 (Residents 56, 170, 69, 18, 15, 92, 85, 22, 164, & 70) of 35 sample residents. The failure to provide dignity during dining services including administration of medications in the dining room (Residents 56, 170, 69, 18, 15, 92 & 300 South Dining Room), provide privacy (Residents 85 & 22), and provide care in a dignified manner (Resident 70 & 164) placed residents at risk for a diminished sense of self-worth and well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to allow 3 (Resident 22, 142, & 170) of 4 residents reviewed for choices, the right to make choices regarding important daily routines and health care, including accommodating preferences for the frequency and/or type of bathing, and 1 supplementary resident (Resident 100). The facility's failure to accommodate resident choice placed these residents at risk for a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to thoroughly investigate reportable incidents for 2 of 5 sample residents (Residents 110 & 95) reviewed for abuse, and one supplemental resident (Resident 124). The failure to thoroughly investigate allegation of abuse placed residents at risk of verbal and mental abuse, psychosocial harm, and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide care conferences as required for 2 (Residents 427 & 28) of 35 sample residents whose Care Plans (CPs) were reviewed, and failed to ensure CPs were updated as needed to reflect changes in resident's care needs for 4 (Residents 22, 142, 170, & 7) of 35 sample residents whose CPs were reviewed. The failure to provide care conferences and to update CPs with changes in residents' health status placed residents at risk for unmet care needs, unnecessary care, and frustration.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADL), related to cleanliness and grooming for 8 of 35 residents (Resident 14, 22, 170, 93, 112, 120, 126, & 82) reviewed for ADLs. Facility failure to provide residents who were dependent on staff for assistance with nail care, dentures, dressing, shaving, and bathing placed the residents at risk for poor hygiene, long facial hair, embarrassment, and a diminished 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 3 of 5 sampled residents (Resident 110, 170, & 171) reviewed for activities. Failure to provide 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 the environment was free of accident hazards for 4 of 9 (2 North, 4 South, St Joseph's Residence (SJR), & 5 North) units reviewed. The failure to ensure sharps (syringe needles, razors etc.) and chemicals were stored safely placed residents at risk for injury, unsafe chemicals, and accident hazards.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure nursing staff had the appropriate competencies and skill sets to provide nursing and related services, to assure resident safety, and attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental and psychosocial well-being of each resident according to resident assessments and plans of care for 4 of 4 facility staff (Staff Q - Certified Nursing Assistant), Staff W Registered Nurse (RN), Staff X - (RN), and Staff Y - (RN)) randomly selected and reviewed for competency. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure proficiency of nursing staff. The failure of nursing and nurse aide staff, to demonstrate a measurable pattern of knowledge, skills, abilities, behaviors that nurses need to perform work roles successfully, resulted in deficiencies related to the competency of nursing staff.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a sanitary environment to help prevent the transmission of communicable diseases. The facility failed to implement and/or follow isolation precautions for 3 of 7 residents (Resident 14, 85, and 15) reviewed for Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) , and failed to follow Transmission Based Precaution (TBP) for 1 of 2 rooms (room [ROOM NUMBER]) reviewed for TBP. These failures placed the residents at risk for facility acquired or healthcare-associated infections and related complications.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to identify and resolve grievances for 1 (Resident 70) of 1 residents reviewed for grievances. This failure placed residents at risk for reoccurrence of issues and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to effectively implement policies addressing the prohibition and prevention of abuse for 2 of 5 residents (Residents 110 and 95) reviewed for abuse and one supplemental resident (Resident 124). The failure to implement abuse prohibition and prevention policies placed residents at risk for verbal and mental abuse, psychosocial harm, and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure local Law Enforcement (LE) was notified for reasonable suspicion of a crime for 1 of 5 residents (Resident 110) reviewed for abuse. The failure to notify LE after substantiating an allegation of inappropriate touch/abuse placed residents at risk for verbal and mental abuse, psychosocial harm, and diminished quality of life. Findings Included . According to Appendix D of Washington State's Department of Social & Health Services Purple Book (Nursing Home Guidelines on prevention and protection, incident identification, investigation, and reporting), incidents involving staff-to-resident concerns must be reported to LE. Appendix D showed that circumstances where
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a system by which residents/representatives received required written notices at the time of transfer/discharge, or as soon as practicable for 2 of 7 residents (Residents 14 and 120) reviewed for hospitalizations. Failure to ensure written notification to the resident and/or the resident's representative of the reasons for the discharge in writing and in a language and manner they understood, placed residents at risk for a discharge that was not in alignment with the resident's stated goals for care and preferences.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide the resident and/or the resident's representative with a written notice of the facility's bed-hold policy, at the time of transfer or within 24 hours, for 2 of 7 sample residents (Resident 14 & 120) reviewed for hospitalization. This failure placed the residents and their representatives at risk of not being informed of their right to, and the cost of, holding the resident's bed while hospitalized that was necessary for decision-making.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure 1 (Resident 170) of 35 residents Minimum Data Set (MDS- an assessment tool) were completed accurately to reflect the resident's condition. This failure placed residents at risk for unidentified and/or unmet needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to develop and/or implement comprehensive Care Plans (CPs) for 2 (Residents 428 & 93) of 35 sample residents whose CPs were reviewed. This failure placed residents at risk for unmet care needs, inappropriate care, and frustration.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure: physician's orders were followed for 2 (Resident 22 & 85) and medications were administered for 1 (Resident 28) of 35 sample 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 ensure 1 of 5 residents (Resident 15) reviewed for Pressure Ulcers (PU- injury to the skin and underlying tissue due to prolonged pressure), received necessary care and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote healing, and prevent new ulcers from developing. Failure to implement wound prevention interventions, report on worsening conditions and to use appropriate hand hygiene practices and personal protective equipment (gloves, masks and gowns) when providing wound care and provide proper infection control practices, placed residents at risk for deterioration in skin condition(s) pressure ulcers and a diminished quality of life. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure residents weights were accurately monitored for 1 of 7 residents (Resident 14) reviewed for nutrition. The failure to ensure resident weights were rechecked when appropriate and the physician notified as required placed residents at risk for weight loss, weight gain, and other negative health outcomes.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure pain management was provided to residents consistent with professional standards of practice including the failure to complete a thorough pain assessment prior to as needed (PRN) pain medication administration and have pain medications readily available for 2 of 7 residents (Resident 120 & 28) reviewed for pain management. These failures placed residents at risk for experiencing untreated pain and a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure medications and biologicals were secured for 1 of 7 units (300 S/Resident 89), and expired medications and biologicals were disposed of for 1 of 6 medication carts (5 South Medication Cart 1), and 4 of 4 medication rooms (5 North, 5 South, 4 South, and 3 South) reviewed for medication storage and labeling. These failures to ensure medication rooms and carts were secured and free from expired medications and ensure medications were not left unattended in common areas placed residents at risk for receiving the wrong medications, expired medications, and other negative health outcomes.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview the facility failed to keep all protected health information in the residents' records confidential and out of view from unauthorized individuals on 1 of 7 (5 North) units reviewed. This failure placed all former and current residents at risk for a violation of their right to privacy.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure effective coordination of care between the facility and hospice staff, for 1 of 2 residents (Resident 170) reviewed for hospice services. Additionally, the facility failed to update the resident's Care Plan (CP) to show which agency was responsible for the hospice care. These failures prevented implementation of a system by which consistent communication between the facility and hospice staff occurred, and placed residents at risk for not for receiving necessary care and services.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure care and services were provided to maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for 4 of 4 residents (Resident 1, 2, 3, & 4) reviewed for falls and safety. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure an environment free of avoidable accidents/injuries for 1 of 7 residents (Resident 1) reviewed for accidents. The failure to ensure nursing staff followed the resident care plan (CP) and facility policy while transferring Resident 1 using a mechanical lift resulted in harm when the resident was transferred by one staff person instead of two staff persons, obtained a laceration on the right leg, and was hospitalized for five days. This failure placed residents requiring a mechanical lift transfer at risk for injury, hospitalization, and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to implement their emergency preparedness plans and procedures for 1 of 1 resident (Resident 1) reviewed for elopement (A situation in which a resident leaves the premises without the facility's knowledge and/or supervision). The failure to identify, evaluate, implement, monitor, and modify interventions to prevent elopement for the safety of residents leaving the facility unsupervised, placed Resident 1 and other residents at risk for avoidable accidents, injuries, diminished quality of life, and death.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) assessments were completed, accurate and/or updated for accuracy for 3 of 5 residents (Residents 45, 111, and 94) reviewed for PASRR, and 1 supplemental resident (Resident 103). The failure to ensure PASRR screening was complete and accurate left residents at risk for inappropriate placement and/or not receiving timely and necessary services to meet their mental health care needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure 3 of 5 residents (Residents 45, 56 & 30) reviewed for nutrition and 1 supplemental resident (Resident 144) maintained acceptable parameters of nutritional status. Failure to ensure resident weight changes were reported as required, weights were collected as ordered, and supplements were provided as ordered left residents at risk for avoidable weight loss, unwanted weight loss, and other negative health outcomes.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure staff completed hand hygiene, secured their hair, or covered ready to eat food during meal service on 5 of 7 kitchenettes (5 North, 5 South, 4 North, 3 South, & 4 South) reviewed for serving meals in a sanitary manner. This failure placed residents at risk of contracting an infectious disease, consuming food prepared in an unsanitary manner, and a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designated to provide a safe and sanitary environment to help prevent the transmission of communicable diseases including Covid-19 (a highly transmissible respiratory disease) and other infections. The failure to ensure staff applied/removed Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) as required, clean shared resident equipment between uses, used a barrier between medications and potentially contaminated surfaces, and performed hand hygiene as required including before and after personal/incontinence care placed residents at risk for infection, disease, and other negative health outcomes.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to inform residents in advance of the risks and benefits associated with psychotropic medication therapy (medications capable of affecting the mind, emotions, and behavior), and obtain resident consent prior to implementing the proposed treatments/therapies for 2 of 5 (Residents 41 & 69) residents and 1 supplemental (Resident 141) reviewed for unnecessary medications. Failure of facility staff to inform residents of the risks associated with medications when obtaining consent for psychotropic medications detracted from the residents' ability to exercise their right to make an informed decision about proposed treatments.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure resident falls were thoroughly investigated with root cause for the fall and new safety interventions identified for 2 (Residents 144, & 111) of 7 residents reviewed for falls. These failures left residents at risk for injury, further falls, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide the resident and/or the resident's representative a written notice of the facility's bed hold policy, at the time of transfer or within 24 hours, for 2 (Residents 30 & 74) of 6 residents reviewed for hospitalization. This failure placed residents and their representatives at risk of not being informed of their right to, and the cost of, holding the resident's bed while hospitalized .
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure Care Plans (CPs) were revised, updated, and maintained with measurable goals for 4 (Residents 41, 30, 94 & 109) of 32 residents whose CPs were reviewed. The facility staff failed to ensure the participation of the resident and the resident's representative(s) in the development of CPs for 3 (Residents 9, 24, & 103) of 32 residents reviewed. These failures 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 Physician's Orders (POs) were followed for 7 (Resident 94, 41, 45, 120, 24, 56, & 82 ) of 32 sample residents; POs were clarified for 1 (Resident 111) of 32 sample residents; medications were not given outside ordered parameters for 1 (Resident 69) of 32 sample residents. These failures left residents at risk for unmet care needs, inappropriate treatment, and other negative health outcomes.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to develop and implement individualized activity plans and ensure activity programs met the needs of each resident for 1 of 4 residents (Resident 402) reviewed for activities, and 1 supplemental resident (Resident 41). Failure to consistently implement meaningful individual activity plans left residents at risk for boredom, frustration, isolation, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure residents' skin was assessed on admission and as ordered, documented, monitored, and treated as required for 3 (Residents 300, 62, & 402) of 32 residents reviewed for non-pressure skin. These failures placed residents at risk for new or worsening skin impairment, discomfort, and other negative health outcomes.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were assessed for and received necessary treatment, adaptive equipment, and services needed to maintain vision abilities for 2 of 4 (Residents 9 & 62) residents reviewed for vision. Failure to ensure residents received vision care they were assessed to require left residents at risk for worsening vision, unmet needs, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure respiratory care and services were followed according to professional standards of practice for 3 of 8 residents (Residents 401, 94, & 109) reviewed for respiratory care, and 1 supplemental resident (Resident 14). The failure to follow Physicians Orders (POs) for respiratory care, routinely change oxygen tubing, and routinely cleaning the oxygen machine filter placed residents at risk for respiratory infections, unmet care needs, and related complications.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure 2 (Residents 94, & 111) of 5 residents whose medication regimens were reviewed, were free of unnecessary psychotropic medications. This failure left residents at risk for unnecessary psychotropic medications, adverse side effects, and other negative health outcomes.
29 fire safety citations on file: 11 on April 13, 2026, 4 on January 10, 2025, 14 on October 27, 2023.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| June 10, 2025 | Fine | $42,114 |
| January 10, 2025 | Fine | $76,615 |
| May 14, 2024 | Fine | $10,839 |
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) | 4.29 | 4.36 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 1.23 | 0.94 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.82 | 3.80 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.54 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.52 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 51.5% | 45.1% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 30.6% | 45.4% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.51 hours a day for residents as sick as this home's (its case-mix figure). The staffing star compares the two.
Every nursing home sends CMS its staff hours for each day (the Payroll Based Journal). Here they are added up by quarter. The latest quarter is the one behind the figures above. In January to March 2026, nursing staff hours per resident were 4.48 on weekdays and 3.82 on weekends, 15% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 6.1% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 4.25 in April to June 2025 to 4.29 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 | 4.29 | 1.23 | 4.48 | 3.82 | 6.1% | 0 of 90 | 185 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 4.32 | 1.10 | 4.52 | 3.80 | 10.4% | 0 of 92 | 181 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 4.36 | 0.84 | 4.56 | 3.84 | 15.7% | 0 of 92 | 174 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 4.25 | 0.71 | 4.43 | 3.79 | 21.8% | 0 of 91 | 185 |
| 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 | 14.2 | 14.2 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.3 | 1.0 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.2 | 1.6 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.3 | 2.6 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.2 | 1.3 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 14.4 | 17.2 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.6 | 4.3 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 17.2 | 15.1 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 24.9 | 19.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 12.5 | 13.4 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.3 | 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 Providence Mount St. Vincent's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it better than the national rate (60.7% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
60.7% 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. 268 eligible stays.
8.1% this home
Better than 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. 276 eligible stays.
6.7% 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. 198 eligible stays.
50.9% 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. 116 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. 148 residents counted.
3.3% 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. 148 residents counted.
88.0% 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. 25 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: PROVIDENCE HEALTH & SERVICES WASHINGTON. CMS links this home to Providence Health & Services, a group of 8 nursing homes averaging 3 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Providence Health & Services - Washington | Direct ownership interest | Organization | 10/15/2009 | |
| Providence St. Joseph Health | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 07/01/2016 | |
| Blair, Richard | Corporate director | Individual | 07/01/2016 | |
| Buck, Linda | Corporate director | Individual | 01/01/2025 | |
| Crawford, Isiaah | Corporate director | Individual | 02/01/2012 | |
| Dufault, Karin | Corporate director | Individual | 01/01/2025 | |
| Hejna, Diane | Corporate director | Individual | 07/01/2016 | |
| Hughes, Phyllis | Corporate director | Individual | 01/01/2014 | |
| Kingston, Mary Beth | Corporate director | Individual | 09/01/2022 | |
| Lyons, Mary | Corporate director | Individual | 07/01/2016 | |
| Markham, Donna | Corporate director | Individual | 01/01/2024 | |
| Murphy, Michael | Corporate director | Individual | 01/01/2021 | |
| O'Quinn, Marvin | Corporate director | Individual | 01/01/2024 | |
| Riojas, Rogelio | Corporate director | Individual | 01/01/2025 | |
| Sorenson, Charles | Corporate director | Individual | 01/01/2019 | |
| Sprunk, Eric | Corporate director | Individual | 01/01/2022 | |
| Anderson, Donald | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/01/2017 | |
| Elmouchi, Darryl | Corporate officer | Individual | 04/01/2025 | |
| Hoffman, Gregory | Corporate officer | Individual | 10/01/2020 | |
| Martin, James | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/13/2023 | |
| Newsom, Anna | Corporate officer | Individual | 05/13/2022 | |
| Providence Health & Services - Washington | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 10/15/2009 | |
| Providence St. Joseph Health | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 10/15/2009 | |
| Anderson, Donald | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/01/2017 | |
| Blair, Richard | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 07/01/2016 | |
| Buck, Linda | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/01/2025 | |
| Crawford, Isiaah | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/01/2012 | |
| Dufault, Karin | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/01/2025 | |
| Elmouchi, Darryl | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/01/2025 | |
| Gonzales - Lim, Maricor | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 09/11/2023 | |
| Hejna, Diane | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 07/01/2016 | |
| Hoffman, Gregory | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 10/01/2020 | |
| Hughes, Phyllis | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/01/2014 | |
| Kingston, Mary Beth | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 09/01/2022 | |
| Lyons, Mary | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 07/01/2016 | |
| Markham, Donna | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/01/2024 | |
| Martin, James | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/13/2023 | |
| Murphy, Michael | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/01/2021 | |
| Nesterenko, Oksana | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 08/06/2024 | |
| Newsom, Anna | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 05/13/2022 | |
| O'Quinn, Marvin | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/01/2024 | |
| Riojas, Rogelio | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/01/2025 | |
| Sikes, Nicole | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 08/22/2022 | |
| Sorenson, Charles | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/01/2019 | |
| Sprunk, Eric | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/01/2022 | |
| Warren, Terri | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 11/01/2022 | |
| Providence Health & Services - Washington | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/31/1999 | |
| Providence St. Joseph Health | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 06/06/2025 | |
| Anderson, Donald | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/01/2017 | |
| Elmouchi, Darryl | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/01/2025 | |
| Gonzales - Lim, Maricor | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 09/11/2023 | |
| Hoffman, Gregory | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 10/01/2020 | |
| Martin, James | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/13/2023 | |
| Nesterenko, Oksana | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 08/06/2024 | |
| Newsom, Anna | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 05/13/2022 | |
| Sikes, Nicole | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 08/22/2022 | |
| Warren, Terri | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 11/01/2022 |
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.