Home / Washington / Spokane
7411 North Nevada, Spokane, WA 99208 · Spokane County · (509) 489-2273
164 certified beds, about 107 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1991
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 505379 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on May 5, 2026, inspectors cited 7 health deficiencies (the Washington average is 15.8, the national average 9.2).
Of 56 health citations since October 2023, 7 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists 4 fines totaling $111,830 in the last three years; the largest was $54,145, and the latest is dated June 9, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.82 hours per resident per day, against 4.36 across Washington and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.62 of those hours.
50.0% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Washington average 45.1%).
CMS links it to Evergreen Healthcare Group, an affiliated group of 43 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 56 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to establish and maintain a system of accounting for controlled drugs (substances or medications that had a high potential for abuse, misuse and addiction) in sufficient detail to enable an accurate reconciliation in 3 of 3 medication room emergency medication kits (Medication room [ROOM NUMBER] - Oak, Medication room [ROOM NUMBER] - Evergreen, and Medication room [ROOM NUMBER]- Transitional Care Unit -TCU), reviewed for medication storage. This failure created a risk of potential undetected drug diversion.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to assess and implement a care plan for a positioning device (wedge to keep head raised) that was provided to 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident 16) reviewed for positioning and mobility. This failure placed the resident at risk for unsafe conditions, risk of poor body alignment and improper positioning. The 04/06/2026 quarterly assessment documented Resident 16 had diagnoses that included dementia and difficult swallowing. Resident 16 was severely cognitively impaired and required substantial assistance for rolling to their left or right side then returning to their back when in bed. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure nail care was provided to a resident per providers orders for 1 of 5 residents (Resident 42) reviewed for Activities of Daily Living (ADL's). This failure placed residents at risk of unmet care needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to consistently monitor a resident for latent injuries after numerous falls for 1 of 4 sampled residents (Resident 4), reviewed for accidents. Specifically, the facility did not complete vital signs (VS- temperature, heart rate, respiratory rate and blood pressure) and neurological checks (neuro checks, an assessment used to evaluate the residents' level of consciousness, movement, hand grasps, pupil size and reaction) after unwitnessed falls. This failed practice placed residents at risk for unidentified injuries and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered as ordered for 1 of 5 sampled residents (Resident 2) reviewed for medication administration. Specifically, two medications for Resident 2 were not held or administered when indicated according to parameters ordered by the provider. This failure placed residents at risk for adverse health complications and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a particular type of drinking cup was consistently provided as care planned and ordered for 1 of 1 sampled residents (Resident 16) reviewed for assistive devices. This failure placed the resident at risk of swallowing difficulties and unintended health consequences.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to follow professional standards for food service safety regarding cleanliness, hand hygiene and facial hair being covered for 3 of 3 food preparation areas (Kitchen, Main Dining Room and Steam Table). These failures placed residents at risk for food-borne illnesses.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review the facility failed to ensure pharmacy services were provided to meet the needs of 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident 1) reviewed for medication management. The failure placed residents at risk for adverse events related to missed medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure provider orders were consistently followed to track ostomy (a surgically placed opening [stoma] in the abdomen to allow body waste to pass into a collection bag) output, teach the resident to manage their ostomy independently, consistently assess and monitor skin around the stoma and provide and document ostomy care consistent with professional standards for 1 of 1 resident (Resident 1) reviewed for ostomy care. Resident 1 experienced harm when they developed excoriation (skin breakdown), redness and weeping, around their ostomy so facility staff were unable to securely adhere the ostomy bag to the skin and required the resident's transfer to the hospital for evaluation and treatment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure 2 of 4 dependent residents (Resident 1 and 3), reviewed for Activities of Daily Living (ADL's), received the appropriate number of baths per week. This failure placed residents at risk for poor hygiene and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide adequate staff supervision for the bed mobility and reassess a resident's ability to assist after a room change and level of consciosness to prevent accidents for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident 2), reviewed for falls. Resident 2 experienced harm when they were rolled toward the edge of their bed by a staff member during a bed linen change, rolled off the bed headfirst onto the floor, required transfer to the hospital and sustained a subdural hematoma (a serious condition where blood collects between the skull and the surface of the brain, usually caused by a head injury).
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to administer the correct dose of pain medication for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident 1), reviewed for medication errors. Resident 1 experienced experienced harm when they had uncontrolled pain that required hospital transfer when Staff administered 50 mg of Tramadol (an opioid medication used for moderate to severe pain) instead of 100 mg, as ordered.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the facility had enough staff to provide care according to facility acuity (the level of severity of residents' illnesses, physical, mental, and cognitive limitations, and conditions) and/or care plans for 5 of 9 sampled resident's (Resident 40, 31, 27, 24 and 28), reviewed for sufficient staffing. This failure placed all residents at risk for potentially avoidable accidents, unmet care needs, and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Specifically, expired foods were not discarded for 1 of 2 refrigerators, 1 of 1 dry storage areas, and food items in the refrigerator and freezer were not dated when opened. The facility further failed to maintain a clean cooking environment. These failures placed residents at risk for food-borne illnesses.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff were offered the COVID-19 vaccine (COVID-19, a viral illness that caused fever, difficult breathing, and other viral symptoms that included possible hospitalization or even death), were provided education regarding the risks/benefits and potential side effects of the vaccine, and maintained documentation related to vaccine education, declination,or administration of the vaccine as required for 3 of 3 sampled staff (Staff G, H, and I) reviewed. This failure placed residents and staff at risk of illness or exposure to the COVID-19 virus and potential unintended health consequences.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure residents could file grievances without reprisal or fear of reprisal, report grievances consistent with alleged abuse to the State Survey Agency as required, and repeatedly promptly resolve grievances for 4 of 5 sampled residents (Resident 40, 31, 10, 24), reviewed for grievances. This failure placed residents at risk of feelings of powerlessness, unmet care needs, and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement its Abuse and Neglect Policy and Procedure to include the identification of potential allegations of abuse, responding to and reporting the allegation to the State Survey Agency (SA) as required, and thoroughly investigating allegations for 5 of 8 sampled residents (Resident 98, 10, 58, 40, and 31), reviewed for abuse. This failure placed residents at risk for abuse, unmet care needs, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide care according to the person-centered care plans and provider orders for 4 of 8 sampled residents (Residents 27, 36, 54 and 89 ) reviewed for quality of care. Specifically, Resident 27 was on a fluid restriction and their intake was not monitored or maintained, Resident 36's blood sugar monitoring equipment was broken by staff and was not replced timely, Resident 54 did not have their bowel management medications administered to prevent constipation, and Resident 89 had difficulty swallowing and a Speech Therapy evaluation was not completed timely. These failures placed residents at risk for unintended health consequences and decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to implement interventions timely to prevent weight loss for 2 of 7 sampled residents (Resident 54 and 77) reviewed for nutrition. This failure placed the residents at risk for further weight loss and a decline in their health.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to complete annual staff performance reviews yearly as required and provide education based on the outcome of these reviews for 1 of 5 sampled staff (Staff F), reviewed for performance reviews. This failure placed residents at risk of receiving care from inadequately trained and/or underqualified care staff, and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to prepare palatable (acceptable/appetizing) meals for 7 of 10 residents (Residents 10, 28, 31, 35, 40, 50 and 77), reviewed for food palatability. This failure placed the residents at risk for a diminished dining experience, dissatisfaction with food served and a potential for less than adequate nutritional intake leading to weight loss.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to perform hand hygiene when indicated and follow transmission-based precautions (TBP) when implemented for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident 61), reviewed for infection control. This failure placed residents at risk of acquiring communicable diseases and diminished quality of life
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain urinary catheters (a tube inserted into the bladder that drains urine into a collection bag) in a dignified manner for 2 of 3 sampled residents (Residents 36 and 154) reviewed for urinary catheter care. This failure placed the residents at risk for public visualization of their urine and possible embarrassment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to implement the self-administration of medicaiton policy, ensure the interdisciplinary team (IDT) determined a residents could self-administer medications, ensure only provider approved medications were kept at the resident's bedside and/or safely and securely stored at the bedside for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident 24), reviewed for choices. This failure placed residents at risk of access to unsecured medications, potentially avoidable medication errors and/or accidents, and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to maintain a clean, comfortable, safe and homelike environment for 2 of 2 sampled residents (Resident 23 and 28), reviewed for environment. Specifically, Resident 23's personal refrigerator contained expired foods, and the facility failed to ensure an exit door was in good repair and Resident 28 had a large hole in the wall behind the door to their room. These failures placed Resident 23 at risk for a foodborne illness, and all residents at risk for injury and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a bed-hold notice, a notice that informed the resident of their right to pay the facility to hold their room/bed while they were hospitalized , to the resident and/or their representative at the time of discharge, or within 24 hours of transfer to the hospital, for 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident 54), reviewed for hospitalization. This failure placed the residents at risk for a lack of knowledge regarding the right to a bed-hold, while they were hospitalized .
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide services that ensured a resident's abilities in activities of daily living (ADLs) did not diminish for 1 of 4 sampled residents (Resident 36) reviewed for activities of daily living. This failure put residents at risk for physical decline and decreased quality of life. Findings Included . The Facility assessment dated [DATE] documented the facility offered cares to residents with various types of needs. Services for Mobility and Fall/Fall with injury Prevention included Restorative Nursing care among others in supporting the resident's independence in doing as many of these activities by him or herself. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide adequate assistance during mealtimes for 1 of 4 sampled residents (Resident 90), reviewed for activities of daily living. This failure placed the resident at risk for decreased food and fluid intake, possible unintended weight loss and decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to consistently implement a resident's care plan and ensure appropriate treatment and services to restore as much normal bladder and bowel function as possible were received 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident 81), reviewed accidents. These failures placed residents at risk for a decline in urinary and/or bowel function, embarrassment, and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure bi-level positive airway pressure (BIPAP, a machine that helped people breathe by delivering pressurized air into their lungs through their nose, or nose and mouth) was implemented as ordered by the physician for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident 81) reviewed for respiratory care. This failure placed the resident at risk for impaired sleep, unmet care needs, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to timely act upon the pharmacist's monthly medication regimen review recommendations for identified irregularities for 1 of 5 sampled residents (Resident 24), reviewed for unnecessary medications. This failure placed residents at risk of receiving unnecessary medications, medication complications, and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure significant medication errors were prevented when medications ordered by the provider were not supplied and as administered for 1 of 5 sampled residents (Resident 156) reviewed for unneccesary medications. This failure put the resident at risk for a possible decline in their physical and mental well-being and decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the staff dated multi-dose vials of medications when first accessed or opened, monitored refrigerator temperatures to ensure vaccinations were adequately stored in 2 of 2 medication storage rooms, cleaned 1 of 2 medication carts reviewed for cleanliness, and ensured medications were secured in a resident's room. This failure placed residents at risk for receiving compromised or ineffective medication management.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure dietary staff had the required training for 4 of 17 sampled dietary staff (Staff M, N, O and P) reviewed for credentialing. This failed practice had the potential risk for unsafe food handling practices and placed all residents at risk for developing foodborne illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure resident records were complete, accurate, readily accessible and resident records were safeguarded against loss, destruction, or unauthorized use for 1 of 4 sampled residents (Resident 98), reviewed for accidents. This failure placed residents at risk of having an incomplete medical record, unauthorized access to confidential health information, and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure arbitration (a procedure used to settle a dispute using an independent person mutually agreed upon by both parties) agreement in a form, manner, and/or language understood by the resident and/or their legal representative for 2 of 3 sampled residents (Residents 13 and 88) reviewed for arbitration. Failure to ensure residents had the cognitive ability to understand and enter into an arbitration agreement with the facility, and failure to ensure staff responsible for explaining the arbitration process and offering the arbitration agreement had adequate training, placed the residents at risk of being uninformed of their rights, losing legal protection, the right to pursue legal action, and a diminishd quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide the necessary care and services to maintain the resident's highest practicable level of well-being for 1 of 3 residents (Resident 1) reviewed for diabetes management. Resident 1 experienced harm when they were found unresponsive from a blood sugar of 39 milligrams (mg)/deciliter (dl) (a normal blood sugar ranges from 80 mg/dl to 130 mg/dl) and Staff administered an oral glucose gel which resulted in Resident 1 aspiration (when food or drink goes into the lung). This failure placed other residents at risk for diminished quality of care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident was free from sexual abuse by a staff member for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident 1), reviewed for abuse. Resident 1 experienced harm when they reported a staff member had sexual intercourse with them and the sexual assault exam showed abrasions consistent with penile penetration. This failure placed the resident at risk for further abuse and psychosocial harm.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure supervision was provided as planned 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident 2) reviewed for falls. Resident 2 experienced harm when they fell out of their bed and sustained a head laceration and skull fracture. This failure placed residents at risk for similar falls, injuries, and adverse outcomes.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to prevent the development of a pressure ulcer for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident 3), reviewed for pressure ulcers. Resident 3 was at an increased risk for skin breakdown and developed an unstageable pressure ulcer that was not identified while at the facility. This failure placed the resident at risk for worsening pressure ulcer and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide care in a manner that promoted resident dignity for 1 of 2 sample residents (Resident 1), reviewed for dignity. The facility failed to dress Resident 1 in appropriate attire before going to an appointment in the community. This failure placed Resident 1 and other residents at risk for embarrassment and diminished self-worth.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide notification to the resident's representative of a change in condition for 1 of 3 sample residents (Resident 2), reviewed for notification of change. This failure prevented the resident's representative from being informed of Resident 2's worsening condition until the resident was being sent to the hospital.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to consistently monitor and document a condition change for 1 of 3 residents (Resident 2), reviewed for change in condition. This failure placed residents at risk for worsening medical conditions and unmet care needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify a resident and their representative of a missed medication for 1 of 2 sampled residents (1) reviewed for medication errors. This failure placed the resident and representative at risk of not being fully informed to make decisions about Resident 1's clinical condition and necessary care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure medications were given as ordered for 1 of 2 sampled residents (1) reviewed for medication administration. This failure placed Resident 1 at risk for worsening of a deep vein thrombosis (DVT, a blood clot in a deep vein) and adverse health consequences when they missed doses of their medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide needed pain management for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident 1), reviewed for pain. Resident 1 experienced harm when the facility did not ensure they had the ordered pain medication, or another effective alternative, to treat the resident timely and the resident had to be transferred to the hospital in order to relieve their pain. This failure placed residents at risk of uncontrolled pain and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to consistently provide showers for 4 of 5 dependent sampled residents (Resident 2, 3, 4, 5), reviewed for bathing. This failure placed residents at risk for poor hygiene and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure personal protection equipment (PPE's) was used in accordance with Centers for Disease Control (CDC) guidelines by 5 staff (A, B, C, D, E), when reviewing infection control practices. This failure placed the 103 residents and staff at risk for contracting COVID-19, a respiratory disease caused by a virus.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure personal protective equipment (PPE) was used in accordance with the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) guidelines by 15 staff (G, I, M, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, BB, CC, DD, EE, FF, GG), when reviewing infection control practices. This failure placed the 96 residents and staff at risk for contracting COVID-19, a respiratory disease caused by a virus. In addition, the facility's failure to nursing staff performed hand hygiene during wound care for 1 of 5 sample residents (Resident 83) reviewed. this failure placed the resident at further risk of infection and medical complications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviewand record review, the facility failed to honor the shower preferences for 3 of 4 sampled residents (Residents 45, 48, and 84), reviewed for activities of daily living (ADLs). This failure placed the residents at risk for skin integrity concerns and decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure pharmacy services and medication administrations met professional standards when medications were not able to be re-ordered timely and residents missed multiple doses of their medications for 31 of 41 sampled residents (Residents 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 18, 22, 34, 35, 37, 39, 41, 42, 45, 48, 50, 52, 53, 59, 65, 69, 71, 73, 77, 78, 80, 81, 83, 85, 86, and 212) reviewed for significant medication errors. This failure placed the 96 residents at risk for complications in their medical conditions, and decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents did not miss multiple doses of their ordered medications, investigate the causes of the missed doses timely, and educate the staff regarding the medication ordering process for 31 of 41 sampled residents (Residents 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 18, 22, 34, 35, 37, 39, 41, 42, 45, 48, 50, 52, 53, 59, 65, 69, 71, 73, 77, 78, 80, 81, 83, 85, 86 and 212) reviewed for significant medication errors. The lack of ensuring the medication system was in place prior to change. This failure placed the residents at risk for complications in their medical conditions, and decreased quality of life. The facility had identified the issues and was in the process of correcting them.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to identify an incident as potential neglect and initial an investigation as required for 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident 289) reviewed for abuse. These failures placed the residents at risk of further neglect, and unmet care needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure Palm Guards (protective devices to prevent or assist with contractures and skin breakdown) were being used as directed in accordance with the comprehensive care plan for 2 of 2 sampled residents (Resident 21 and 29) reviewed for quality of care. This failure placed residents at risk of skin injuries, worsening contractures, the shortening or tightening of tissues that reduces movement, and a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure 2 of 2 residents (Resident 29 and 83), reviewed for respiratory care and treatment, received appropriate oxygen services. This failure placed the residents at risk to receive inappropriate care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to implement a consistent process to ensure 1 of 2 observed potentially hazardous areas (housekeeping closet) was secured. This failure placed cognitively impaired residents at risk of injury.
28 fire safety citations on file: 7 on May 5, 2026, 15 on January 17, 2025, 6 on October 4, 2023.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| June 9, 2025 | Fine | $14,505 |
| April 14, 2025 | Fine | $34,356 |
| August 2, 2024 | Fine | $54,145 |
| January 26, 2024 | Fine | $8,824 |
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) | 3.82 | 4.36 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.62 | 0.94 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.31 | 3.80 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.46 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.74 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 50.0% | 45.1% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 61.1% | 45.4% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.80 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 4.03 on weekdays and 3.31 on weekends, 18% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 1.5% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.89 in April to June 2025 to 3.82 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 | 3.82 | 0.62 | 4.03 | 3.31 | 1.5% | 0 of 90 | 107 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.81 | 0.67 | 3.99 | 3.36 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 103 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.84 | 0.60 | 4.03 | 3.32 | 1.8% | 0 of 92 | 105 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.89 | 0.59 | 4.11 | 3.33 | 8.9% | 0 of 91 | 105 |
| 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.
| 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 | 19.9 | 14.2 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.3 | 1.0 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.7 | 1.6 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.7 | 2.6 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.1 | 1.3 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 26.8 | 17.2 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.4 | 4.3 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.5 | 15.1 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 14.3 | 19.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 18.3 | 13.4 | 12.0 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Royal Park Health and Rehabilitation's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (47.0% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
47.0% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · Washington: 71 better, 16 worse
Rate of successful return to home or community from a SNF (risk-standardized discharge to community rate). Higher is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 341 eligible stays.
9.7% 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. 323 eligible stays.
6.6% 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. 191 eligible stays.
60.5% 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. 129 residents counted.
1.2% 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. 161 residents counted.
1.3% 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. 161 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. 43 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: ROYAL PARK HEALTH SNF OPERATIONS LLC. CMS links this home to Evergreen Healthcare Group, a group of 43 nursing homes averaging 2.4 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pacific Northwest 12 Leased Operations Holdings LLC | Direct ownership interest | Organization | 08/31/2023 | |
| Ch Pnw 12 Holdings LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 08/31/2023 | |
| Witzcorp Pnw 12 LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 08/31/2023 | |
| Herzka, Yisroel | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 08/31/2023 | |
| Yenowitz, Yitzchok | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 08/31/2023 | |
| Washington Idaho Property, L.L.C. | 5% or greater security interest | Organization | 08/31/2023 | |
| Curry, Danielle | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 08/31/2023 | |
| Odenthal, Jason | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 08/31/2023 | |
| Couve Financial Services LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 08/31/2023 | |
| Couve Healthcare Consulting LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 08/31/2023 | |
| Pnw 12 Opco Management LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 08/31/2023 | |
| Pnw 12 SNF Consulting LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 08/31/2023 | |
| Royal Park Health SNF Operations LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 08/31/2023 | |
| Bishop, Leigh | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 08/31/2023 | |
| Curry, Danielle | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 08/31/2023 | |
| Harrison, Micaela | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 08/31/2023 | |
| McGaughey, Meagan | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 08/31/2023 | |
| Odenthal, Jason | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 08/31/2023 | |
| Spielman, Shimon | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 08/31/2023 | |
| Yenowitz, Yitzchok | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 08/31/2023 | |
| Couve Financial Services LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 05/01/2025 | |
| Couve Healthcare Consulting LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 05/01/2025 | |
| Pnw 12 Opco Management LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 05/01/2025 | |
| Pnw 12 SNF Consulting LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 05/01/2025 | |
| Royal Park Health SNF Operations LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 07/07/2025 | |
| Washington Idaho Property, L.L.C. | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 06/17/2025 | |
| Bishop, Leigh | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 08/31/2023 | |
| Curry, Danielle | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 08/31/2023 | |
| Harrison, Micaela | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 08/31/2023 | |
| McGaughey, Meagan | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 08/31/2023 | |
| Odenthal, Jason | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 08/31/2023 | |
| Spielman, Shimon | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 08/31/2023 | |
| Yenowitz, Yitzchok | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 08/31/2023 |
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.