Home / Washington / Yakima
4007 Tieton Drive, Yakima, WA 98908 · Yakima County · (509) 966-4500
75 certified beds, about 58 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1990
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 505367 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on July 25, 2025, inspectors cited 5 health deficiencies (the Washington average is 15.8, the national average 9.2).
Of 38 health citations since July 2023, 1 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists no fines against this home in the last three years.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 4.15 hours per resident per day, against 4.36 across Washington and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.95 of those hours.
55.7% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Washington average 45.1%).
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 38 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to protect a resident's right to be free from verbal and physical abuse for 1 of 3 residents (Resident 1) reviewed for abuse investigations. This failure placed residents at risk for further abuse, injury, and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to 1) store Potentially Hazardous Food (PHF, food that requires time/temperature controlled to limit the growth of bacteria) that did not have the proper labels and dates for food safety tracking, 2) adequately disinfected food preparation areas to prevent cross contamination (harmful spread of diseases) for 1of 1 kitchen reviewed and 3) ensure the dishwasher sanitizer concentration was effective for sanitation for 1of 1 kitchen reviewed. These failures placed residents at an increased risk for food borne illnesses. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to provide a safe, functional, and sanitary environment for 2 of 2 shower rooms (Hall Two and Hall One), 2 of 3 resident bathrooms (Hall One) and 1 of 1 laundry room reviewed for a safe and sanitary environment. This failure placed residents at an increased risk for not feeling safe and secure with their environment and unmet care needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify the physician of significant changes in condition for 1 of 3 Residents (Resident 4), reviewed for falls. This failure placed the resident at risk for delayed medical interventions and treatment.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to review and validate the Preadmission Screening and Resident Reviews ([PASARR], an assessment to ensure individuals with serious mental illness [SMI] or intellectual disabilities [ID] or related disorders [RD] are not inappropriately placed in nursing homes for long term care) were corrected on admission, had the required level 2 referral sent if residents had a positive Level 1 PASARR nor corrected/updated resident PASARR as needed for 2 of 5 residents (Residents 11 and 16) reviewed for unnecessary medications. This failure placed the residents at risk for not receiving the care and services appropriate for their needs. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the actual hours worked were documented on the daily nursing staff posting for 27 of 45 shifts reviewed for accuracy of posted nursing hours. This failure prevented residents, family members and visitors from knowing the actual hours worked by nursing staff.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure funds were reimbursed to the State Office of Financial Recovery (OFR), within 30 days of a resident's discharge or death, for 4 of 4 residents (Residents 252, 253, 254, and 255), reviewed for personal funds. This failure placed the state department at risk for loss of funds and interest accumulated.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to review and validate the Preadmission Screening and Resident Reviews ([PASARR], an assessment to ensure individuals with serious mental illness [SMI] or intellectual/developmental disabilities [ID/DD] are not inappropriately placed in nursing homes for long term care) were corrected on admission, had the required level 2 referral sent if residents had a positive Level 1 PASARR nor corrected/updated resident PASARR as needed for 4 of 9 residents (Resident 21, 27, 47 and 49) reviewed for PASARR. This failure placed the residents at risk for not receiving the care and services appropriate for their needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure medications were discarded when expired for 2 of 3 medication carts (Team 1 and Team 3). The facility also failed to ensure consistent monitoring of temperature for the medication storage refrigerator located in the medication storage room. These failures placed residents at risk for receiving expired medication and/or experiencing compromised or ineffective medications and vaccines.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure staff maintained components of an infection prevention control program to prevent the development and transmission of infections with, 1) hand hygiene for 4 of 8 staff (Staff P, G, H and O) reviewed during medication administration and entering/exiting isolation precautions (a process used to reduce the transmission of infectious bacteria and organisms in the healthcare setting), 2) implementing appropriate transmission based precautions (TBP, safeguards put in place to help prevent staff and residents from spreading infectious diseases) when providing care for 2 of 3 residents (Resident 33 and 34) reviewed for standard precautions, 3) cleaning/disinfecting of resident equipment and furniture for 3 of 4 types of equipment (chairs, sofa and mechanical sit-to-stand devices) and residents general/isolation [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to issue a written notice of bed hold (holding or reserving a resident's bed while the resident was absent from the facility) at the time of hospital transfer for 2 of 3 residents (Residents 7 and 9) reviewed for hospital transfers. This failure placed the residents at risk for lack of knowledge regarding their right to hold their bed and any monetary charges associated with the bed hold while in the hospital.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure culturally competent, trauma-informed care, related to assessing for trauma and identifying trigger-specific (a psychological stimulus that prompts recall of a previous traumatic event) interventions for residents with a history of trauma for 1 of 3 residents (Resident 14) reviewed for trauma informed care. This failed practice placed the resident at risk for unidentified triggers, re-traumatization and psychological harm.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate of less than five percent. Three medication errors were identified for 2 of 6 residents (Residents 21 and 43) observed during 25 medication administration opportunities that resulted in an error rate of 12%. The failed practice had the potential to place residents at risk for not receiving the full therapeutic effect of the medication and possible adverse side effects.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to send a copy of a notice of transfer/discharge to the representative of the Office of the State Long Term Care (LTC) Ombudsman (a person that advocates for residents in nursing homes) for 3 of 3 residents (Residents 2, 3, and 4) reviewed for notice of transfer/discharge. This failed practice placed the residents at risk for lack of access to an advocate that could inform them of their options and rights, and to ensure the resident advocacy agency was aware of the facility practices and activities related to a transfer or discharge.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement an effective discharge planning process that addressed the resident's goals and needs, that involved the resident and the interdisciplinary team [(IDT) a group of healthcare professionals from different disciplines to help residents receive the care they need] for 1 of 3 residents (Resident 5) reviewed for discharge planning process. The failure to develop and implement a plan consistent with the resident's needs and expressed discharge goals, placed the resident at risk for decreased self-worth and dissatisfaction with their living situation.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's smoking location was away from a high traffic thoroughfare, dry grassy area, and had a receptacle for disposing of lit cigarettes and ashes for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident 30) reviewed for smoking This failure placed all residents a risk for avoidable accidents, injuries, and the potential risk of fire. On 07/17/2023 At 2:10 PM, the facility was notified of an immediate jeopardy (IJ) at CFR 483.25 (d)(1)(2) F689, related to the facility's failure to ensure the resident had a safe smoking environment, and all residents remained free of fire risks. The facility removed the immediacy on 07/18/2023, with onsite verification from investigators, by providing a safe smoking location on the facility property and a cigarette receptacle for the resident to dispose of cigarettes and ashes. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the food was palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature for 7 of 7 residents (Residents 5, 38, 54, 32, 55, 46, and 27) interviewed about meal satisfaction during the Resident Council meeting, and 2 of 4 residents (Residents 49 and 30) reviewed for meal palatability. Additionally, Resident 49 was served eggs for breakfast routinely even though eggs were listed as a dislike. This failure placed the residents at risk for weight change, less than adequate nutritional intake, and dissatisfaction with meals.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to periodically review resident rights with residents during their stay at the facility for 7 of 7 sampled residents (Residents 5, 27, 32, 38, 46, 54, and 55). This failure placed residents at risk of not understanding their rights and a reduced ability to self-advocate.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure current state survey results were available for 7 of 7 sampled residents (Residents 5, 27, 32, 38, 46, 54, and 55) to examine. This failure prevented residents, family members, and visitors from exercising their rights to examine these documents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to document, periodically review, and revise Advanced Directives related to residents' wishes for 9 of 9 sampled residents (Residents 1, 7, 8, 21, 26, 30, 31, 44 and 213), reviewed for Advanced Directives. This failure prevented residents from having their health care decisions and preferences known in advance, and when they were unable to communicate this information.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to provide a clean and comfortable homelike environment for 7 of 10 resident rooms (rooms 2, 3, 4, 20, 32, 35 and 55), 3 of 3 shower rooms (Team 1 shower room, Team 2 shower/bath room and Team 3 shower room), and missing/damaged wood panel flooring were also observed in one of five hallways (Team 2 hallway) all reviewed for safe, comfortable, and sanitary environment, 2 of 5 hallways in resident care areas (Middle and Kitchen hallways) reviewed for comfortable sound levels. These failures placed residents at risk for a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the coordination of care conferences for 3 of 4 residents (Residents 20, 30 and 44); and failed to update or revise care plan changes for fall interventions and resident preferences for 2 of 4 residents (1 and 30) reviewed for care plan timing and revision. This failure placed the residents at risk for unmet and unidentified care needs and decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to initiate gradual dose reductions (GDR- stepwise tapering of a dose to determine if symptoms, conditions, or risks could be managed by a lower dose or if the dose or medication could be discontinued) or obtain a rationale from the physician or prescribing practitioner that a GDR was clinically contraindicated for 2 of 5 residents (Residents 12 and 25) reviewed for unnecessary medication; and the facility failed to ensure as-needed (PRN) psychotropic medications (medications capable of affecting the mind, emotions, and behavior) were limited to 14 days without providing a physician-documented rationale or duration for 1of 2 residents (Resident 7) reviewed for PRN psychotropic medication use. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure medications, biologicals, and testing supplies were labeled, dated, or discarded when expired for 1 of 1 medication room and 1 of 1 treatment cart reviewed for medication storage. These failures placed residents at risk of receiving compromised or ineffective medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure implementation of infection prevention and control practices for for 1) hand hygiene was completed and gloves were changed by staff between soiled and clean tasks for 2 of 3 residents (Resident 40 and 59) observed for personal care, 2) hand hygiene that was not appropriately performed by 7 of 10 staff, observed during meal services, 3) failure to perform hand hygiene wound care for 1 of 2 residents (Resident 24) observed during a wound care procedure and, 4) failure to follow contact precautions for 1 of 1 resident (Resident 28) reviewed for compliance with Transmission Based Precautions. These failures placed the residents at risk for acquiring infectious diseases and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to provide a dignified dining experience during two of two dining observations. On 07/16/2023, during the lunch service, the facility failed to provide meals to all residents at a table at the same time for 6 residents (Residents 33, 9, 15, 47, 31 and 1) who waited 10 minutes after Resident 42 and Resident 27 were served; and the facility failed to ensure 1 of 3 staff (Staff G) observed talked with the resident for whom they were providing assistance rather than conducting social conversations with other staff, Staff G fed Resident 33 without engaging the resident and had a conversation with Staff L, NA, that did not include the residents. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to protect the personal privacy for 2 of 3 residents (Resident 40, and 31) observed for urinary catheter (a hollow, partially flexible tube that collects urine from the bladder and leads to a drainage bag) care or incontinent care. This failure placed the resident at risk for loss of the right to personal privacy.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure three of the seven required components (identification, investigation, and reporting) in of the prevention of abuse and neglect policy were consistently implemented for 2 of 4 residents (Residents 26 and 213) reviewed for abuse/neglect. This failure prevented the facility from identifying the extent and nature of the occurrence, interview all individuals involved, and placed the residents at risk for unidentified abuse and/or neglect.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to issue a written transfer notice to a resident and/or legal representative and to the state Ombudsman for 2 of 3 residents (Resident 49 and 59) reviewed for hospitalizations. This failure placed residents at risk of not being informed of their condition, unmet care needs and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a written bed-hold notice, at the time of transfer or within 24 hours of transfer to the hospital, for 2 of 3 Residents (Resident 49 and 59), reviewed for hospitalization. This failure placed the resident or their representative at risk for a lack of knowledge regarding their right to hold their bed while in the hospital.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to accurately assess 3 of 5 residents (Residents 49, 17, and 20) whose Minimum Data Sets (MDS - an assessment tool) were reviewed. Failure to ensure accurate assessments related to Vision (Residents 49 and 17) and Communication (Resident 20), placed residents at risk for unidentified and/or unmet needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to review the Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR, a tool used to identify if a person may have an intellectual disability (ID) or related condition (RC), or a serious mental illness [SMI]) for accuracy upon admission for 1 of 6 residents (Resident 7) reviewed for PASARR services. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure a resident received a PASARR Level I ( an inital assessment to determine whether an individual might have (SMI) or (ID)) which was required prior to admission to the facility. This failure placed the residents at risk for unidentified mental health needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to implement a Care Plan related to wearing a hearing aid for 1 of 1 sampled residents (Resident 14). This failure resulted in Resident 14 having unmet care needs and was at risk for a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that 2 of 5 residents (Resident's 59 and 6) reviewed for dental care received goods and services to maintain their ability to perform oral care. The facility did not ensure the resident's oral care equipment was consistently set up for the residents to participate in this aspect of Activities of Daily Living (ADLs, activities related to personal care). This failure placed residents at risk for unmet care needs and a deterioration in their oral health status.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide a one-to-one individualized activity program for cognitive stimulation for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident 1). This failure placed Resident 1 at risk of decreased cognitive ability and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to consistently follow physician ordered eating recommendations for 1 of 1 resident (Resident 59) reviewed for safe swallowing guidelines. This failure placed the resident at risk for choking, aspiration (a condition where food or liquids are breathed into the lungs), and an overall decline in their health status.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents received proper treatment and assistive devices to maintain their vision for 2 of 3 residents (Resident 49 and 59) reviewed for vision. Failure to assist residents to obtain vision services/devices, placed the residents at risk for decreased self-care, social interaction and participation in activities.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure pharmacy recommendations were followed up on for 1 of 5 resident (Resident 25), reviewed for unnecessary medications. This failure placed the resident at risk of inaccurate dosing of medication, adverse side effects, and receiving a medication longer than medically necessary.
42 fire safety citations on file: 8 on July 25, 2025, 15 on September 10, 2024, 19 on July 22, 2023.
CMS lists no fines or payment denials against this home in the last three years. The national average is 0.9 fines per home.
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) | 4.15 | 4.36 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.95 | 0.94 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.50 | 3.80 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.59 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.61 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 55.7% | 45.1% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 56.3% | 45.4% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 4.48 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 4.41 on weekdays and 3.50 on weekends, 21% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 1.9% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 4.18 in April to June 2025 to 4.15 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 | 4.15 | 0.95 | 4.41 | 3.50 | 1.9% | 0 of 90 | 58 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 4.02 | 1.00 | 4.25 | 3.41 | 2.4% | 0 of 92 | 60 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 4.13 | 0.97 | 4.45 | 3.34 | 2.3% | 0 of 92 | 59 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 4.18 | 0.92 | 4.44 | 3.51 | 4.2% | 0 of 91 | 54 |
| 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 | 15.9 | 14.2 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.9 | 1.0 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.3 | 1.6 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.1 | 2.6 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.8 | 1.3 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 9.4 | 17.2 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.1 | 4.3 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 16.7 | 15.1 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 18.7 | 19.9 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 19.7 | 13.4 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.9 | 1.3 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.6 | 1.5 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Willow Springs Care and Rehabilitation's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it better than the national rate (60.8% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
60.8% 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. 131 eligible stays.
7.9% 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. 118 eligible stays.
7.5% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 7.1% · Washington: 4 better, 0 worse
Percentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2023 to September 2024. 79 eligible stays.
57.8% 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. 64 residents counted.
2.3% 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. 87 residents counted.
3.1% 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. 87 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: WILLOW SPRINGS CARE.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hyatt Family Facilities LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 02/01/2006 | |
| Hyatt, Jeffrey | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 02/01/2006 | |
| Hyatt, Norman | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 02/01/2006 | |
| Berk, Heidi | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 11/01/2012 | |
| Repp, Rebecca | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 10/13/2011 | |
| Cleveland, Michael | Corporate director | Individual | 01/01/2017 |
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.