Home / Washington / Blaine
456 C Street, Blaine, WA 98230 · Whatcom County · (360) 332-8733
57 certified beds, about 54 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1991
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 505395 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on February 17, 2026, inspectors cited 7 health deficiencies (the Washington average is 15.8, the national average 9.2).
Of 41 health citations since September 2023, 2 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists 2 fines totaling $47,182 in the last three years; the largest was $32,890, and the latest is dated February 10, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.79 hours per resident per day, against 4.36 across Washington and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 1.29 of those hours.
52.3% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Washington average 45.1%).
CMS links it to Cascadia Healthcare, an affiliated group of 47 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 41 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to provide 1 of 3 residents (Resident 1) timely services and treatment for symptoms of a urinary tract infection (UTI) which met the criteria of current standards of practice and the facility's policy. This failed practice caused Resident 1 to experience a delay in treatment of a UTI and placed the resident at risk for diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure pharmaceutical services included processes for the provision, monitoring and/or use of medication related to devices involving 1 of 1 resident (Resident 2) reviewed for anticoagulant (blood thinning) medications. Failure to perform quality control testing on test meters had the potential to result in inaccurate measurement of therapeutic drug levels.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure adequate pain management was provided for 1 of 3 residents (Resident 1) reviewed for dental care. This failure had the potential to result in a decreased quality of life for Resident 1, who was experiencing dental pain.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents with personal funds/resident trust accounts had ready access to their accounts during weekends for 14 of 15 residents (Residents 3, 31, 34, 10, 39, 42, 43, 44, 48, 49, 50, 52, 61, 62) reviewed for trust fund accounts and failed to manage and account for the personal funds in an interest bearing account of 1 of 1 residents (Resident 3). These failures placed residents at risk of not having access to their accounts during non-banking hours, a decreased sense of autonomy and a diminished quality of life.<READY ACCESS TO FUNDS>Review of trust fund list provided by facility on 02/09/2026 at 11:22 AM, documented 15 residents had trust accounts and of those, 13 had funds available. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, observations and record review the facility failed to identify a fall hazard for 1 of 2 residents (Resident 3) reviewed for accidents and failed to secure the doors of the soiled utility room and janitor room on 1 of 2 halls (East Hall). These failures placed the residents at risk for accidents, access to hazardous items, and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure treatment carts and medication carts were locked for 2 of 3 medication carts (West and East medication carts) and 2 of 2 treatment carts (West and East treatment carts). These failures placed residents at risk for having access to treatment supplies and medication not prescribed to them, missing medication, and access to medication by unauthorized individuals.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the dietary/culinary manager (Staff J) had proper qualifications. This failure placed residents at risk of receiving dietary services from staff without the required competencies and skills to carry out food and nutrition services.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff recognized and reported timely potential abuse allegations to the State Agency within 24 hours for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident 34) reviewed for abuse. This failure placed residents at risk for unidentified patterns of alleged violations and at risk for potential abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to conduct a thorough investigation of potential abuse allegations for 1 of 3 residents (Resident 34) reviewed for abuse. This failure to initiate, conduct a thorough investigation, and correct actual or potential alleged violations left residents at risk for unidentified and/or repeated incidents of abuse and a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure 2 of 3 residents (Residents 1 and 49) reviewed for quality of care received the necessary care and services in accordance with professional standards of practice to meet each resident's physical, mental and psychosocial needs. The facility failed to ensure that Resident 1 was appropriately assessed, monitored, and documented after returning from dialysis treatments and failed to set up and appropriately monitor Resident 49's side effects of an anticoagulant (blood thinner) medication. These failures placed the residents at risk for unrecognized or undetected medical complications and a decreased quality of life related to unmet care needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 1 resident (Resident 1) received medically related social services assistance to understand their financial matters. This failed practice placed Resident 1 and other residents at risk of financial exploitation.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that 1 of 5 residents (Resident 155) reviewed for informed consent had received the information of risks and benefits of their proposed care related to psychoactive medications (substances that affect a person's mental processes, behavior and mood). This failure placed the resident at risk for potentially unknown or unwanted side effects, and decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure resident care plans were reviewed and revised for 1 of 2 residents (Resident 51) reviewed for activities of daily living. This failure placed residents at risk for lack of appropriate care and services by the staff.
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 2 sampled residents (Resident 206) reviewed for activities of daily living. This failure put residents at risk for physical decline and decreased quality of life. Findings Included . Resident 206 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include chronic ulcer of the foot, high blood pressure and altered mental status. Review of Resident 206's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS-an assessment tool used to screen for cognitive impairment) dated 03/12/2025 showed a score of 12 out of 15, indicating the resident had moderate impairment. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to assess and implement resident centered pain intervention for one of four sampled residents (Resident 51) reviewed for pain. This failure placed residents at risk for unrelieved pain, lack of participation in therapy and a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to prevent psychosocial and physical abuse of 1 of 3 residents (Resident 1) reviewed for abuse and neglect. Resident 1, who had a well-known history of sexual trauma, experienced psychosocial and physical harm when during an episode of constipation, a Nursing Assistant Certified (NAC) proceeded to break up and remove the resident's impacted feces without their consent and outside their scope of practice even after the resident told the NAC to stop.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to provide notification to the resident's representative of a change in treatment for 1 of 1 resident (Resident 4) reviewed for medication changes. This failed practice prevented the resident's representative from being informed and participating in care decisions.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure 3 of 3 residents (Residents 1, 2 and 3) who had orders for daily weights were weighed daily. This failed practice placed residents at risk of diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure 3 of 6 facility nursing staff responsible for providing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) were current in their CPR training. This failure had the potential risk of the facility having a lack of staff who were properly trained in CPR readily available to respond in an emergency.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 3 residents (Resident 2), reviewed for non-pressure related skin ulcer/wound, received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice. This failed practice placed Resident 2 at risk when they developed myiasis (a parasitic infection of fly larva in human tissue) to their non-pressure wounds and placed all residents at risk of further decline in their conditions, discomfort, and a diminished quality of life/quality of care.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure dental services was coordinated for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident 1) reviewed for dental services. Failure to follow up on dental referrals and ensure the coordination of dental services for residents who were edentulous (having no teeth) placed the residents at increased risk for difficulty chewing, associated health complications, and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure residents had the right to voice grievances related to call light response time, missing personal items, and excessive wait times without fear of retaliation. The failure to allow the Resident Council Committee (RCC) to file grievances on complaints/concerns without the fear of retaliation placed residents at risk for ongoing unmet care needs, unresolved missing property and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure 2 of 3 resident's (Resident 3 and 4) choice of bathing frequency was honored. The facility failed to provide and honor the resident's care planned bathing preference. This failed practice placed residents at risk for a diminish quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to provide the required refund for 1 of 4 sampled residents and/or their resident representative (Resident 1) within the required 30 days after the resident's discharge. This failed practice placed the resident and/or resident representative at risk of financial hardship.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to thoroughly investigate an allegation of potential abuse and neglect for 1 of 1 incident sampled resident (Resident 3) reviewed for abuse and neglect. This failed practice prevented the facility from identifying the potential extent and nature of the allegation of abuse and neglect and placed residents at risk of diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to arrange hospice services for 1 of 1 resident (Resident 2) reviewed for hospice care. Failure to ensure hospice services were arranged or Resident 2 was transferred to a facility that offered Resident 2's preferred hospice agency denied the resident of their hospice benefit.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure 1 of 3 residents (Resident 1) was provided pain management consistent with the resident's choices and goals for comfort and dignity. This failed practice placed the resident at risk of unmet care needs and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to offer assistance and supervision with meals, consistently offer an alternative meal when residents at less than 50% of their meal and evaluate the effectiveness of weight loss interventions to determine if additional interventions were needed for 2 of 3 residents (Resident 46 and 31) reviewed for nutritional needs. These failures caused harm to Resident 46 when they experienced a severe weight loss of 9.1% in less than three months and placed other residents at risk for additional weight loss and a decline in their nutritional status.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure drugs and biologicals were stored in accordance with state and federal laws for 2 of 2 medication refrigerators (East Hall and [NAME] Hall) in the Medication Storage Rooms. These failures placed residents at risk to receive inactivated medications and/or vaccines and may experience adverse side effects and other potential negative health outcomes.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, and interview, the facility failed to provide a homelike environment for 1 of 2 dining rooms (East Dining Room), and 1 of 2 halls (East Hall), and 8 out of 20 resident rooms (Rooms 7, 12, 16, 17, 20, 21, 27, and 29) reviewed for environment. The facility failed to ensure that residents were served their meals in a home like environment, failed to ensure lightening fixtures were cleaned and repaired, and failed to ensure resident's rooms flooring and doors were clean and in good repair. The facility failure to provide maintenance services and homelike dining experience placed residents at risk for diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI), an assessment of a resident's needs, strengths, goals, and preferences, included thorough summaries of the Care Area Assessments (CAA - a systematic process to interpret the triggered information from the Minimum Data Set assessment to assess the potential problem and determine if the area should be care planned), to holistically analyze the plan of care for 6 of 9 sampled residents (Residents 15, 28, 8, 18, 31, and 40) reviewed for comprehensive assessments. This failure placed the residents at risk of not having appropriate services provided based on the resident's individualized needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide residents assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADL) to include personal hygiene and bathing for 5 of 5 sampled dependent residents (Residents 5, 15, 28, 41 and 46), reviewed for ADL. The failure to provide the resident's, who were dependent on staff for assistance with grooming and showers placed residents and others at risk for embarrassment, poor hygiene, unmet care needs and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure 4 of 5 sampled residents (Residents 16, 35, 8, and 28) reviewed for unnecessary medications, were free of unnecessary psychotropic medications. The facility failed to ensure there were valid diagnoses for use of psychotropic medications, monitoring, valid consents for use, and attempted gradual dose reductions (GDR - is the stepwise tapering of a dose to determine if symptoms, conditions, or risks can be managed by a lower dose or if the dose or medication can be discontinued). These failures placed residents at risk for receiving unnecessary psychotropic medications, for adverse events, and diminished quality of care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to serve meals that were at a safe temperature and appetizing for 2 of 2 sampled residents (Residents 8 and 31) and 2 of 2 halls reviewed for food quality. This failed practice placed residents at risk for decreased nutritional intake and food borne illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure staff were compliant with Infection Prevention and Control Guidelines and standard of practice for 1 of 2 hallways (East Hall), for 1 of 1 resident during catheter care (Resident 8) and failed to implement their respiratory protection plan (RPP) for 32 of 79 employed staff. The facility failed to ensure the staff used appropriate hand hygiene practices, staff were wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) in accordance with national standards, clean and disinfect universal resident medical equipment, and staff following appropriate infection control practices on and around medication administration carts. This failed place all residents and staff at risk for potential infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure pneumococcal vaccines (a vaccine that protects against pneumococcal infections that can lead to serious infections such as pneumonia and blood infections) were screened, educated on risk and benefits, and/or offered the vaccine for 4 of 5 sampled residents (Residents 15, 16, 28, and 35) reviewed for immunizations and infection control. This failed practice placed the residents at risk for illness, spread of a communicable disease and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure criminal background checks were completed for 2 of 5 sampled facility staff (Staff U and V) and failed to ensure the Omnibus Reconciliation Act (OBRA) Nurse Aide Registry (a database to ensure nurse aides meet federal requirements and are eligible to work in a skilled nursing facility) checks were completed for 3 of 3 sampled Nursing Assistants (Staff O, T, and V) reviewed for staff qualifications and background review. These failures placed all residents at risk for abuse/neglect.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 1 resident (Resident 28) reviewed for respiratory care and services was provided care consistent with professional standards of practice. The facility failed to ensure the concentrator (a medical device that provides pure oxygen) was set to the ordered flow rate. This failure placed residents at risk for receiving care and services that were not physician ordered, unmet care needs, diminished quality of life and negative outcomes.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that routine dental services were coordinated for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident 40) reviewed for dental services. Failure to ensure dental services were coordinated placed residents at increased risk for health complications associated with caries and poor dentition.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure 1 of 1 resident (Resident 1) had their rights respected and honored when their choice to have a personal phone to communicate with whom they chose was taken away. This failed practice placed the resident and all other residents at risk of diminished quality of life and at risk of losing their resident rights to have access to their personal phone.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure residents were free from accidents for 1 of 3 residents (Resident 1) reviewed. Failure to properly position and secure Resident 1 in their wheelchair (w/c) caused the resident to experience a fall out of their w/c during transportation in the facility van, placing them at risk for injury.
60 fire safety citations on file: 9 on February 17, 2026, 25 on March 25, 2025, 26 on February 9, 2024.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| February 10, 2025 | Fine | $32,890 |
| December 26, 2023 | Fine | $14,292 |
| December 26, 2023 | Payment Denial | 42 days from March 26, 2024 |
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) | 3.79 | 4.36 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 1.29 | 0.94 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.35 | 3.80 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.94 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.56 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 52.3% | 45.1% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 52.0% | 45.4% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.66 hours a day for residents as sick as this home's (its case-mix figure). The staffing star compares the two.
Every nursing home sends CMS its staff hours for each day (the Payroll Based Journal). Here they are added up by quarter. The latest quarter is the one behind the figures above. In January to March 2026, nursing staff hours per resident were 3.97 on weekdays and 3.35 on weekends, 16% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.1% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 4.02 in April to June 2025 to 3.79 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 | 3.79 | 1.29 | 3.97 | 3.35 | 0.1% | 0 of 90 | 54 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.72 | 1.30 | 3.89 | 3.28 | 1.3% | 0 of 92 | 54 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.88 | 1.52 | 4.01 | 3.54 | 8.7% | 0 of 92 | 51 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 4.02 | 1.47 | 4.22 | 3.53 | 12.4% | 0 of 91 | 51 |
| 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 | 5.4 | 14.2 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.6 | 1.6 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 2.6 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.5 | 1.3 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.2 | 17.2 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.3 | 4.3 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 12.1 | 15.1 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 21.6 | 19.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 6.9 | 13.4 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.2 | 1.3 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.7 | 1.5 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Stafholt Health and Rehabilitation of Cascadia's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (54.3% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
54.3% 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. 47 eligible stays.
9.5% 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. 51 eligible stays.
6.0% 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. 34 eligible stays.
50.8% 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. 65 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. 81 residents counted.
0.0% this home
Median of homes: Washington1.4% · US 1.7%
Percentage of residents with pressure ulcers or pressure injuries that are new or worsened (adjusted rate). Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 81 residents counted.
Not reported
CMS note: Newly certified nursing home with less than 12-15 months of data available or the nursing opened less than 6 months ago, and there were no data to submit or claims for this measure.
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.
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: BLAINE OF CASCADIA LLC. CMS links this home to Cascadia Healthcare, a group of 47 nursing homes averaging 3.1 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cascadia Washington Operations LLC | Direct ownership interest | Organization | 07/01/2023 | |
| Cascadia Hc Group LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 06/05/2025 | |
| Cascadia Healthcare LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 07/01/2023 | |
| Cascadia Holdco LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 06/05/2025 | |
| Hammond, Owen | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 07/01/2023 | |
| Laforte, Stephen | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 06/05/2025 | |
| Nelson, Timothy | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 06/05/2025 | |
| Blaine 456 Realty, LLC | 5% or greater security interest | Organization | 06/05/2025 | |
| White Oak Healthcare Finance LLC | 5% or greater security interest | Organization | 08/11/2022 | |
| Cascadia Services LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 11/30/2022 | |
| Bristow, Benjamin | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 08/01/2024 | |
| Hammond, Owen | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 07/01/2023 | |
| Laforte, Stephen | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 06/05/2025 | |
| Nelson, Timothy | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 06/05/2025 | |
| St. Germaine, Danielle | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 08/26/2024 | |
| Blaine 456 Realty, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 06/05/2025 | |
| Cascadia Services LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/08/2025 | |
| Bristow, Benjamin | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/14/2025 | |
| St. Germaine, Danielle | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/14/2025 |
As listed in the CMS ownership file, which names owners with a 5% or greater stake and the people and companies with operational or managerial control.
Chosen from this home's own inspection record.
These are the official offices in Washington. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.