Avamere Rehabilitation Of Burien
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Burien, Washington.
- Location
- 1031 Southwest 130th Street, Burien, Washington 98146
- CMS Provider Number
- 505252
- Inspections on file
- 20
- Latest survey
- May 19, 2025
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 0
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Avamere Rehabilitation Of Burien during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
Three residents with documented dental issues did not receive timely dental referrals or follow-up, despite staff assessments and provider recommendations. Delays in coordinating dental care and lack of documentation led to prolonged periods without necessary dental treatment, with staff turnover contributing to missed appointments and unresolved dental needs.
The facility did not provide or document assistance with advance directives for a resident with intact memory at admission, and failed to maintain current guardianship papers for three residents with impaired memory and incapacity for medical decision-making. Staff confirmed the absence of required documentation, and facility policy regarding ADs was not followed.
A resident who was discharged home after their condition improved did not receive a required Notification of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) letter. Although the resident was given a discharge notice and arrangements for home health services were made, there was no documentation or confirmation that the NOMNC letter was provided.
Surveyors observed that handrails were missing end pieces, walls in several rooms had deep gouges and exposed drywall, and window blinds in multiple rooms were missing or broken panels. A resident reported that the missing blind panels affected their privacy. The Maintenance Director confirmed the need for repairs to these areas.
A resident with moderate memory impairment reported missing personal items, including a bottle of hand soap, and repeatedly voiced concerns to staff without receiving assistance in filing a grievance or having the issue documented. Staff interviews revealed confusion about the grievance process, and the facility failed to initiate, investigate, or resolve the grievance as required by policy.
The facility did not ensure accurate Level I PASRR screenings prior to admission for two residents, resulting in incomplete documentation of serious mental illness indicators and missing diagnoses such as depression, despite evidence of psychotropic medication use and mental health conditions. Staff confirmed the inaccuracies and acknowledged the responsibility to review and verify PASRR information before admission.
The facility did not offer two residents the opportunity to participate in care conferences as required, and failed to update care plans for two other residents to reflect changes in their condition or treatment. These deficiencies were confirmed through interviews, record reviews, and observations, with staff acknowledging that care plans were not current or accurate.
Staff did not consistently assist two dependent residents with ADLs such as shaving, dressing, and personal hygiene, despite care plans and facility policy requiring this support. Both residents were observed with unmet grooming needs and reported not receiving the necessary help, while staff interviews confirmed the expected care was not provided.
A resident with a history of stroke and cortical blindness did not receive a scheduled follow-up eye care appointment as required by their care plan. Although staff documented the need for ongoing vision care and scheduled a follow-up, there was no evidence the appointment occurred or that the missed visit was addressed, resulting in a lapse in necessary vision services.
Mechanical lifts used for resident transfers were found with missing and non-functional safety clips, as well as a non-operational brake, following concerns raised by a resident. Observations confirmed these deficiencies, and staff interviews indicated that monthly checks did not identify or address the issues prior to surveyor review.
A resident who was alert and able to communicate needs was not reassessed for bowel and bladder care, and staff did not provide a urinal or initiate scheduled toileting as directed by the care plan. Staff interviews and observations confirmed the absence of necessary interventions, resulting in continued incontinence and unmet care needs.
Surveyors found expired medications and medical supplies in a medication room and on a medication cart, including a TB testing vial, blood thinners, wound care products, and an insulin pen, as well as medications belonging to discharged residents that had not been returned or destroyed. Additionally, a medication cart was left unsecured with keys in the narcotic drawer and no staff present. Staff confirmed these items should have been removed or secured according to facility policy.
Staff did not consistently follow infection control protocols, including the use of PPE and hand hygiene, for residents on contact and enhanced barrier precautions. A resident with a multidrug-resistant infection received care from staff who failed to use gowns, gloves, or perform hand hygiene as required. Additional issues included uncleanable furniture, improper urinal storage, and housekeeping staff neglecting hand hygiene after personal grooming activities.
Failure to Provide Timely Dental Services and Follow-Up
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that three out of four residents reviewed for dental services received the necessary care and services to maintain their dental health. According to the facility's policy, routine and emergency dental services should be provided through a contract dentist, referrals, or community providers, with the social services department responsible for assisting residents with appointments. However, documentation and interviews revealed significant delays and lack of follow-up on dental referrals for multiple residents. One resident had a dental consult recommending x-rays, evaluation, extractions, and dentures, but there was no documentation of follow-up for over two months after the consult was acknowledged by staff. Another resident, assessed with broken and missing teeth, had a dental consult with recommendations for further evaluation, but no follow-up on the referral was documented for almost five months. A third resident, also assessed with decayed and broken teeth, had repeated provider orders for dental referrals, but no evidence of follow-up was found for nearly six months, even after the resident presented with a broken tooth. Interviews with staff indicated that turnover and changes in assignment contributed to missed referrals and lack of timely follow-up. Staff responsible for coordinating dental care and appointments were unable to provide documentation or explanations for the delays, and residents reported ongoing dental issues and pain due to the lack of timely dental services.
Failure to Maintain Advance Directives and Guardianship Documentation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure proper documentation and assistance regarding advance directives (ADs) and guardianship papers for several residents. For one resident with intact memory at admission, there was no documentation in the chart to show that the facility offered assistance to formulate an AD, nor was there a signed acknowledgement form on file. Staff confirmed that such documentation should exist but were unable to provide it. The facility's policy requires inquiry about AD status upon admission and assistance if needed, but this was not followed in this case. Additionally, for three residents with impaired or severely impaired memory and lacking capacity for medical decision-making, the facility did not maintain current guardianship documentation. In each case, the only guardianship papers on file were expired, and staff confirmed that no current documents were available. The care plans for these residents indicated the need for up-to-date guardianship papers and regular review, but the records did not reflect compliance with these requirements.
Failure to Provide Required Medicare Non-Coverage Notice at Discharge
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide a required Notification of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) letter to a resident who was discharged home after their health improved and they no longer required the services provided by the facility. Record review showed that while the resident received a Nursing Home Transfer or Discharge notice and arrangements were made for home health services, there was no documentation that a NOMNC letter was given. The Social Services Director confirmed during an interview that the NOMNC letter was not provided, and the resident did not leave against medical advice.
Environmental Deficiencies Impact Homelike Setting
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain a homelike environment across all five units, as evidenced by multiple environmental deficiencies observed during the survey. Handrails in the central hallway and outside specific rooms were missing end pieces, resulting in sharp edges and an unhomelike appearance. Several resident rooms had walls with deep gouges, exposed drywall, scuff marks, and areas lacking paint, particularly around and under windows. Additionally, the material cover of a chair in one room was torn. Window blinds in multiple rooms were missing vertical panels, with some blinds having broken or uneven panels. One resident expressed frustration about the missing blind panels, stating it affected their sense of privacy. During an interview, the Maintenance Director acknowledged the importance of maintaining a homelike environment and confirmed that the handrails, walls, and blinds required repair.
Failure to Initiate and Resolve Resident Grievance Regarding Missing Personal Items
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to initiate, investigate, and resolve a grievance for a resident who reported a missing personal item. The resident, who had clear speech and was able to make themselves understood despite moderate memory impairment, reported to staff that their personal gallon bottle of hand soap was taken and replaced with wipes. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with using wipes for hygiene and stated that no staff offered to help them fill out a grievance form. Multiple interviews and observations confirmed that the resident repeatedly voiced concerns about the missing soap and later a missing washcloth, but no grievance form was initiated, and the issue was not documented in the facility's grievance log. Staff interviews revealed inconsistent understanding and application of the facility's grievance policy. While the Social Services Director and Resident Care Manager stated that staff should complete a grievance form when a resident raises a concern, the LPN involved considered the issue a safety matter rather than a grievance and did not process it accordingly. The administrator confirmed that grievances should be resolved within five days and documented, but no such documentation or resolution occurred for the resident's missing items.
Inaccurate PASRR Screenings Prior to Admission
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that Level I Preadmission Screening and Resident Reviews (PASRRs) were accurate prior to admission for two residents. For one resident with multiple complex diagnoses, including anxiety, depression, and PTSD, the Level I PASRR completed prior to admission did not indicate any Serious Mental Illness (SMI) indicators, despite hospital records showing the resident was actively receiving psychotropic medications and had SMI indicators. Both the Social Services Director and Admissions Coordinator acknowledged that the PASRR was inaccurate and that it is the facility's responsibility to ensure accuracy prior to admission. For another resident with moderate memory impairment and a diagnosis of depression, the Level I PASRR completed prior to admission did not include the depression diagnosis and indicated no SMI indicators. Staff interviews confirmed that the PASRR was incomplete and inaccurate, and that the facility is responsible for reviewing hospital-completed PASRRs for accuracy before admission.
Failure to Offer Care Conferences and Update Care Plans
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that residents were offered the opportunity to participate in care conferences and that care plans (CPs) were updated as needed, as required by facility policy and regulatory standards. Specifically, two residents who were cognitively intact and able to communicate did not recall being invited to or participating in care conferences following significant assessment updates or admission. Record reviews confirmed that care conferences were either not documented or not held as required, and staff interviews acknowledged these omissions. Additionally, the facility did not update or revise care plans to reflect changes in residents' conditions or treatments. One resident's care plan continued to include goals for splint use even after the splint was discontinued due to repeated refusals, and another resident's care plan inaccurately described the type of urinary catheter in use, despite physician orders and direct observation confirming the presence of an indwelling catheter. Staff confirmed that these care plans were not accurate or current, contrary to expectations and policy.
Failure to Provide Required ADL Assistance for Dependent Residents
Penalty
Summary
Staff failed to provide necessary assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs), specifically personal hygiene and grooming, to two residents who were dependent on staff for these tasks. One resident, who required substantial assistance to stand and set-up help for personal hygiene due to limited mobility and impaired balance, was observed on multiple occasions with unshaven chin hair despite expressing a preference for a smooth chin and having a care plan directing staff to assist with shaving. Documentation indicated that shaving was provided daily, but observations and resident interviews contradicted this, revealing that assistance was not consistently given as required. Staff interviews confirmed that shaving should be provided when hair growth is observed, but staff failed to notice or offer assistance during their shifts. Another resident, who was non-weight-bearing on one arm following a fracture and was dependent on staff for all ADLs including toileting, transferring, personal hygiene, and bathing, was repeatedly observed in bed, undressed, and with facial hair. The resident reported not receiving assistance with shaving or being helped out of bed for meals, as directed in their care plan. Staff interviews confirmed that the resident required help with all ADLs and that there were no reports of care refusal. Facility policy required staff to provide necessary ADL support and to reapproach residents if care was initially resisted, but this was not followed, resulting in unmet hygiene and grooming needs for both residents.
Failure to Ensure Follow-Up Vision Care for Resident with Cortical Blindness
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident with highly impaired vision received the necessary follow-up care as directed by their care plan and the facility's sensory impairment policy. The resident, who had a history of stroke resulting in cortical blindness, was identified through assessments and care planning as being at risk for safety issues, distress, and isolation due to their vision impairment. Staff were instructed to arrange consultations with eye care practitioners as required. Despite documentation that the resident attended an eye exam and was scheduled for a six-month follow-up, there was no evidence in the resident's records that the follow-up appointment occurred or that the missed appointment was addressed. The eye specialist clinic confirmed that the resident did not return for the scheduled follow-up, and staff interviews revealed an inability to locate any documentation regarding the missed appointment. This lack of follow-through resulted in the resident not receiving the ongoing vision care specified in their care plan.
Mechanical Lifts Not Maintained in Safe Working Order
Penalty
Summary
Facility staff failed to ensure that mechanical lifts used for resident transfers were maintained in safe working order. According to the facility's policy, staff are required to inspect all equipment prior to use, ensuring that safety clips are present and functional, and that wheels and brakes operate correctly. During a Resident Council meeting, a resident who required mechanical lift assistance for transfers reported concerns about missing and non-functional spring-loaded locking clips on the lifts. Observations confirmed that one lift was missing a spring-loaded locking clip and had two additional clips that did not spring shut. The same lift also had a brake that could not be engaged due to a missing rubber mechanism. Another lift was found to be missing two spring-loaded locking clips. Staff interviews revealed that the Maintenance Director checked the mechanical lifts monthly and acknowledged that the spring-loaded locking clips sometimes failed and required replacement. Despite these checks, the deficiencies were not identified or addressed prior to the surveyor's observations. The administrator and maintenance staff were made aware of the issues during the survey, and the lifts remained accessible in the resident hallway for over an hour after the safety concerns were identified.
Failure to Reassess and Provide Bowel/Bladder Care
Penalty
Summary
Facility staff failed to reassess a resident's bowel and bladder needs or provide necessary care and services to improve continence. The resident, who was alert, able to make their needs known, and had no memory impairment, was always incontinent of bowel and bladder according to the most recent assessment. The care plan directed staff to assist with toileting at specific times and to keep a urinal within reach, as the resident had previously used a urinal successfully in the hospital and expressed awareness of the need to urinate but was unable to walk to the bathroom. Despite these directives, observations showed the resident lying in bed without a urinal present, and staff interviews confirmed that a urinal was not available in the room. Staff acknowledged that they had not reassessed the resident's continence status or initiated a scheduled toileting program as required. The lack of reassessment and failure to provide assistive devices or scheduled toileting left the resident at risk for unmet care needs and avoidable incontinence.
Expired Medications and Unsecured Storage Identified
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors observed that the facility failed to properly store, return, and discard expired medications and supplies in both a medication room and a medication cart. In the medication room, a vial of TB testing solution remained in the refrigerator more than 30 days after being opened, and multiple expired medications and medical supplies, such as blood thinning medication, blood collection needles, wound dressings, and wound gel, were found past their expiration dates. Additionally, a filing cabinet in the medication room contained numerous bottles and cards of medications belonging to residents who had been discharged between five and ten months prior, which had not been returned to the pharmacy or destroyed as required by facility policy. On the middle medication cart, surveyors found the keys left hanging in the narcotic drawer lock with no staff present, and an insulin pen that had expired two days prior was still stored in the cart. Staff interviews confirmed that expired medications and supplies should have been removed and that medications for discharged residents should be returned or destroyed promptly. These actions and inactions were inconsistent with the facility's own policies and accepted professional standards for medication storage and security.
Failure to Adhere to Infection Control Protocols and PPE Use
Penalty
Summary
Staff failed to follow established infection prevention and control protocols for residents on contact precautions and enhanced barrier precautions. For one resident with a multidrug-resistant organism wound infection, staff did not consistently use required personal protective equipment (PPE) such as gowns and gloves when entering the room, despite clear signage. Multiple staff members, including a registered nurse, a certified nursing assistant, and a dietary manager, entered the resident's room without donning appropriate PPE or performing hand hygiene as directed. Staff were observed delivering medications, handling food trays, and assisting with resident care without adhering to contact precaution requirements, and in some cases, moved between rooms and common areas without performing hand hygiene after contact with the resident or their environment. In another instance, staff did not follow enhanced barrier precautions for a resident's room, failing to wear gloves and gowns during close contact and not performing hand hygiene before and after resident interaction. Staff were observed assisting the resident with positioning and then handling food and beverages for other residents without changing PPE or performing hand hygiene, increasing the risk of cross-contamination. Additional deficiencies included the presence of uncleanable surfaces, such as a chair with torn, non-cleanable material in a resident's room, and unsanitary handling of urinals, which were found hanging inside trash cans. Housekeeping staff were also observed engaging in personal grooming activities, such as clipping and filing fingernails, and blowing their nose in common areas without performing hand hygiene afterward. These actions were inconsistent with facility policy and infection control standards, as confirmed by interviews with the infection preventionist and maintenance director.
Latest citations in Washington
A resident with cerebral palsy and a court-appointed guardian experienced multiple episodes of nausea, vomiting, loose stools, abdominal discomfort, fatigue, and later refusal of meals and medications, leading to changes in the care plan including close monitoring, lab testing, and IV fluid administration. Despite a facility policy recognizing court-appointed guardians as resident representatives with decision-making authority, staff did not document any notification to the guardian during these changes in condition or treatment decisions. The guardian reported not being contacted when the resident stopped eating or developed stomach issues and felt the facility did not respect the guardianship, while the DON acknowledged there were multiple missed opportunities to notify the guardian of the resident’s change from baseline.
A resident with depression, anxiety, moderate cognitive impairment, and urinary incontinence, care-planned for q2h checks and assistance with toileting, was found by a visitor to be soaking wet, unusually agitated, and reporting they had been told to wait to be changed and referred to with a derogatory remark. The visitor filed a written grievance alleging abuse/neglect related to delayed incontinence care and removal of the resident’s tablet as a consequence. Although an incident report noted that the matter was reported to the state and that the resident was not soaking wet, a CNA who actually changed the resident later reported the resident’s brief, pants, wheelchair, and socks were soaked and that the resident was acting timid and repeatedly saying they had to sit for five minutes, but this CNA was never interviewed. The DON acknowledged not investigating the resident’s behavior or interviewing this CNA, and the grievance official acknowledged the facility did not fully investigate or communicate findings and resolution to the complainant, resulting in a failure to follow the facility’s grievance policy.
A resident with dementia, respiratory failure, and heart failure developed new shortness of breath with an O2 sat of 90%, and a physician ordered transfer to the ED for tx and eval. An RN completed an SBAR, notified the MD and family, and reported to the oncoming nurse that the resident needed ED transfer and that paramedics should be contacted, then left the facility. Instead of calling 911 for this emergent respiratory distress, staff arranged non-emergent transport through a contracted ambulance service, resulting in the resident remaining at the facility for several hours without pickup until the dispatcher later instructed staff to call 911. The DON stated that 911 is expected to be used for emergent conditions and the contracted service only for non-emergent transport.
A resident with anoxic brain injury, dysarthria, and documented lack of decisional capacity alleged physical abuse and expressed fear of their identified representative, yet social services only reported the allegation to the state and did not complete an incident report, revise the care plan, or implement protective interventions. The same representative continued to be treated as the resident’s decision-maker and visited frequently, with staff noting suspicious odors of foreign substances and concerns about possible illicit substance use. Psychiatry later documented concern that the representative was providing illicit substances, and the resident was subsequently hospitalized for altered mental status and overdose, after which the representative was banned. Key staff, including the DON, unit manager, and administrator/abuse coordinator, were unaware of the initial abuse allegation, and social services did not timely explore or clarify legal decision-making authority or alternative representation for the resident.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment, osteoarthritis, and spinal spondylosis, care planned for 2-person Hoyer transfers, was being moved by two CNAs using a mechanical lift when one corner loop of the sling became disengaged, causing the resident to fall about four feet, strike the floor and the lift, and sustain head abrasion, multiple rib fractures, and lumbar vertebral fractures. Facility policy required staff to verify secure sling attachment, examine hooks, clips, fasteners, and strap stability, and ensure the sling bar was sound before lifting, but during this transfer the sling loop detached despite staff believing it was properly fastened and hearing it click into place; post-incident assessment showed the loop had come loose, the sling appeared in good condition, and a CNA later reported thinking one of the round metal disks on the lift might have been slightly loose, while maintenance logs documented no prior concerns with the lifts or slings.
The facility failed to revise and individualize care plans to reflect current needs and preferences for multiple residents, including one cognitively intact resident with hemiplegia, hemiparesis, and mononeuropathy who had bilateral shoulder surgery and could not tolerate BP measurements on the upper arms but preferred forearm readings. Despite repeatedly informing staff, this preference was not documented in the care plan or Kardex, and direct care staff and the RN/UM were unaware of it. Another cognitively intact resident with hemiplegia, contractures, and weakness reported they were supposed to get out of bed for two hours daily, but some NACs did not know this, even though the MAR/TAR contained an order to document times up and back to bed. The surveyors concluded that care plans were not accurately revised for several residents, placing them at risk for unidentified and unmet care needs and diminished quality of life.
Surveyors found that two residents with hemiplegia, hemiparesis, weakness, and contractures did not receive restorative nursing services, including ROM exercises and splint/brace or orthotic assistance, after therapy discharge. Although PT and OT discharge summaries documented established restorative ROM and transfer programs, recommended PROM to affected extremities, and recommended splint/brace use and assistance with orthotic wear, these recommendations were not entered as restorative referrals in the EHR. As a result, the residents’ care plans and records showed no restorative programs, and both residents reported that therapy and restorative exercises had stopped, while the DON, rehab director, and MDS coordinator confirmed they were unaware of and had not implemented the recommended restorative services.
A resident with cancer, cognitive impairment, and declining strength experienced multiple unwitnessed falls, most occurring while attempting to toilet or move toward the bathroom, culminating in a fractured ankle requiring ED treatment. Although assessments identified fall and incontinence risks and the facility’s policy required individualized interventions, the comprehensive care plan lacked a toileting plan and did not include several interventions that were discussed in incident investigations, such as consistent wheelchair placement and frequent rounding for bathroom assistance. Staff reported relying on verbal reminders and education to use the call light, despite acknowledging the resident’s impulsivity and failure to call for help, and the resident’s bed remained furthest from the bathroom while repeated bathroom-related falls occurred without the trend being recognized or addressed in the care plan.
A resident with a history of acute urinary retention and acute kidney injury had a Foley catheter deemed permanent by the hospital, with instructions that it not be removed in the SNF. At a later urology visit, the catheter was removed, and the resident returned with no new orders documented. Facility staff did not document bladder assessments, post-void residuals, or urine output, and CNA documentation showed the resident did not void that evening. Over the next day, the resident had vomiting, poor intake, altered level of consciousness, tachycardia, hypotension, and no documented wet briefs. A bladder scan eventually showed more than 2000–2500 mL of retained urine, and a new catheter drained a large volume. The resident and a roommate reported moaning, crying out in pain, and repeatedly alerting staff that the resident was not urinating and that the catheter was not draining, while nurses documented catheter care when no catheter was in place and later had to flush and replace the catheter due to continued complaints.
Surveyors found that nurses and nurse aides did not consistently administer medications according to professional standards and facility policy. Multiple residents reported that agency nurses were slow with medications, did not fully follow instructions, and often gave routine meds late. Observations showed an LPN administering expired Humalog/Lispro insulin well past the scheduled time, an LPN giving several scheduled meds (including Tizanidine) late and all at once, and an RN attempting to give sliding-scale insulin nearly two hours late, which a resident refused after already eating. Another resident received Methocarbamol two hours late after questioning the RN, and a resident on scheduled Tramadol had doses given without timely documentation, with a discrepancy between the narcotic count and pills remaining. These events demonstrated failures in timely administration, use of non-expired medications, and immediate, accurate MAR and narcotic documentation.
Failure to Notify Court-Appointed Guardian of Resident’s Clinical Changes
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to notify a resident’s court-appointed guardian of significant clinical changes and care decisions, contrary to its own policy and state requirements. The facility’s policy on Resident Representatives, revised 02/2021, states that a resident representative includes a court-appointed guardian or conservator and that the facility treats the representative’s decisions as those of the resident to the extent delegated or required by the court. Resident 1, admitted with cerebral palsy, had a Superior Court guardianship letter dated 02/07/2025 indicating a guardian of person and conservator of the estate with full authority, identifying Collateral Contact 1 (CC1) as the guardian. Despite this, multiple clinical events and changes in condition were documented without any corresponding documentation that CC1 was notified. Progress notes and provider notes show that Resident 1 experienced an episode of nausea and vomiting, frequent loose stools, abdominal discomfort, bloating, worsening fatigue, generalized weakness, and later refusal of meals and medications over at least a 24-hour period, with observations that the resident appeared frailer, more fatigued, and had no energy or interest to talk. The provider developed care plans including close monitoring for deterioration, sending stool to the lab, and later initiating IV fluids for rehydration, with a plan to call family/POA for discussion. However, there was no documentation that the guardian was notified at any of these points, including when IV fluids were started. CC1 reported that they were not contacted when the resident stopped eating or developed stomach issues, and expressed that the facility did not respect their guardianship and that involvement in care planning took too long. The DON confirmed on record review that there were many opportunities to notify the guardian when the resident’s condition changed from baseline and that there was no evidence staff did so.
Failure to Thoroughly Investigate and Resolve Resident Grievance Regarding Incontinence Care and Staff Conduct
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to thoroughly investigate and resolve a grievance alleging neglect and disrespect toward a resident, as required by its grievance policy. The resident had depression, anxiety, moderate cognitive impairment, occasional urinary incontinence, and required moderate assistance with toileting, with a care plan directing staff to check the resident every two hours, ask about toileting needs, and ensure they were clean and dry. A collateral contact reported arriving to visit the resident and finding them soaking wet and agitated, with behavior that was not typical for the resident. The collateral contact documented in a written grievance that the resident’s tablet was off, the resident appeared upset, and the resident reported being told they had to wait five minutes to be changed and that staff would change their “nasty *ss” in five minutes, leading the collateral contact to believe the resident had been given a consequence of no tablet and sitting in wet clothes, which they characterized as abuse/neglect and requested immediate removal of the responsible staff and a report filed. The facility documented receipt of the grievance and created an incident report indicating the matter was reported to the state agency, and that the unit manager interviewed the collateral contact and the resident, with the resident described as confused and denying being soaking wet. The incident report stated that a different nursing assistant was assigned to assist with the brief change and that the unit manager believed the resident was not soaking wet, and that the resident and collateral contact were satisfied when they left the room. However, a CNA who actually changed the resident reported that the resident’s brief was soaked through their pants onto the wheelchair and their socks were soaked, and that the resident was timid, repeatedly saying they had to sit for five minutes, and not acting like themselves; this CNA stated they were never interviewed or asked about the grievance or the resident’s condition. The DON acknowledged not interviewing this CNA or investigating the resident’s behavior and why they were upset, and the unit manager did not recall whether the collateral contact was present during follow-up and did not believe they followed up with the collateral contact regarding the grievance. The administrator, identified as the Grievance Official, stated the facility should have thoroughly investigated the grievance and discussed findings and resolution with the collateral contact, indicating the grievance process was not fully carried out in accordance with policy and WAC 388-97-0460.
Failure to Obtain Timely Emergency Transport for Resident in Respiratory Distress
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to obtain timely emergency medical services for a resident experiencing new-onset respiratory distress. The resident had dementia, respiratory failure, and heart failure, with severe cognitive impairment and a need for substantial assistance with activities of daily living. On the day the resident was sent to the hospital, a collateral contact observed the resident having difficulty breathing, appearing unable to get enough air, and looking as if they were sleeping or unconscious, and reported this to staff with a request to contact the doctor. An SBAR Communication Form documented that the resident was experiencing shortness of breath that had not occurred before, with an oxygen saturation of 90%. The physician was notified and ordered the resident sent to the emergency department for treatment and evaluation, and the collateral contact was notified shortly thereafter. Progress notes later documented that, despite the order for emergency department transfer, the resident was still awaiting pickup by Olympic transportation several hours later, with no estimated time of arrival. At approximately 3:30 AM, the dispatcher informed the facility that they could not provide transportation and instructed that 911 be called; only then was 911 contacted and the resident transported to the hospital via ambulance for respiratory distress. The RN caring for the resident stated they completed the SBAR, notified the physician and family, and at the end of their shift reported to the oncoming nurse that the resident needed to be sent to the emergency department for respiratory distress and that paramedics should be contacted, then left assuming 911 would be called. The DON stated that staff are expected to contact 911 for emergent conditions such as shortness of breath or respiratory distress, and that Olympic Ambulance is used only for non-emergent transport.
Failure to Provide Social Service Advocacy After Abuse Allegation and Questionable Representative
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide appropriate medically-related social services and advocacy for a resident following an allegation of abuse and concerns about the resident’s representative. The resident had an anoxic brain injury, dysarthria, moderate cognitive impairment, and was dependent on staff for activities of daily living. A hospital palliative care note documented that the resident lacked decisional capacity, had no DPOA, that the legal next of kin (CC4) did not want to be part of care decisions, and that care decisions were being deferred to another contact (CC5). CC5 accompanied the resident on admission, signed admission forms, and was listed as the primary contact in the medical record profile. On a date in February, during communication therapy, the resident reported that CC5 had done something to them, pounded their hands on their chest, recalled being hit in the back of the head by an unknown person, and stated they were sometimes afraid of CC5. A social services staff member reported this allegation to the state agency but did not complete a facility incident report, did not initiate care plan changes or interventions, and took no further action. CC5 continued to be treated as the resident’s representative, and progress notes documented CC5 at the bedside on multiple dates, including an entry noting the room smelled like foreign substances and that CC5 was seen waking the resident and then asking the nurse to administer pain medications. A psychiatry note later documented concern that CC5 was providing the resident with illicit substances and stated it would be prudent for the resident to identify a POA. Subsequently, the resident was found unresponsive, transported to the hospital, and later readmitted after altered mental status and overdose, with a provider note stating that CC5 posed a significant danger to the resident and was banned from visiting. After readmission, staff attempted to contact CC4 for consent to treat but initially reached someone who stated they were not CC4. The social service director acknowledged that, beyond reporting the initial allegation, no additional interventions were implemented, that CC5 continued to be used as the resident’s representative after the allegation, and that they had not explored legal authority for decision making following the abuse allegation or concerns about substances. The social service assistant reported they did not speak with the resident about the hospital stay or CC5 and did not complete an incident report or care plan changes after the allegation. The unit manager and DON were unaware of the initial abuse allegation, and the administrator, who served as abuse coordinator, also stated they were unaware of the allegation and that an investigation should have been initiated and a representative for the resident investigated at a minimum.
Injury from Mechanical Lift Sling Detachment During Transfer
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a safe mechanical lift transfer when a resident was being moved with a Hoyer lift and sling, resulting in a fall and injury. Facility policy for using a mechanical lifting machine required staff to securely attach sling straps to the sling bar according to manufacturer’s instructions, double-check the security of the sling attachment before lifting, examine all hooks, clips, or fasteners, check strap stability, and ensure the sling bar was securely attached and sound. Despite these requirements, during a transfer for dinner, two CNAs placed the sling under the resident, attached the loops at each corner of the sling to the lift, and raised the resident off the bed into the space between the bed and wheelchair when the bottom left corner of the sling became disengaged from the lift. The resident involved had multiple diagnoses including osteoarthritis, cervical and thoracic spondylosis, and Alzheimer’s disease, with the Minimum Data Set documenting severely impaired cognitive skills for daily decision-making. The resident’s care plan required the assistance of two staff during Hoyer lift transfers. During the transfer, the resident fell approximately four feet, landing on her buttocks, bouncing, and then falling backward and striking her head on the leg of the Hoyer lift. Hospital records documented that the resident sustained an abrasion to the back of the head, fractures of the 6th, 7th, 8th, and 10th ribs, and fractures of the 1st and 2nd lumbar vertebra. Staff interviews and observations showed that staff believed the sling loops had been securely fastened and reported hearing the loops click into place before lifting. One CNA stated that they had barely lifted the resident off the bed when the bottom left loop became disconnected and the resident fell. Another CNA reported being shocked and unable to figure out what had happened. A nurse who assessed the resident and then examined the equipment after the fall noted that one of the loops of the sling had become disengaged but stated the sling appeared to be in good condition. During a later demonstration, a CNA indicated she thought one of the round metal disks on the lift might have been a little loose. Maintenance logs for Hoyer slings and lifts for the preceding months documented no concerns with the slings or lifts, and the DON acknowledged expecting a citation due to the resident’s injury from the fall.
Failure to Revise Care Plans to Reflect Resident Needs and Preferences
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to revise and individualize comprehensive care plans to reflect residents’ current needs and preferences, as required by its own care planning policy. For one resident with hemiplegia, hemiparesis following cerebrovascular disease, and mononeuropathy of the upper limb, the admission MDS showed intact cognition and upper extremity impairment. This resident reported having bilateral shoulder surgery and an inability to tolerate blood pressure measurements on the upper arms due to pain, and stated a preference for BP measurements on the forearms. The resident reported having informed multiple nursing staff of this preference, but staff continued to place the cuff on the upper arms. Review of the resident’s care plan and Kardex showed no interventions or instructions regarding forearm BP cuff placement. A NAC confirmed they were unaware of the preference until the resident told them directly and that this instruction was not documented in the Kardex. The RN/Unit Manager, who stated they were responsible for revising and reviewing care plans when there were changes, also confirmed they were not aware of the resident’s preference and that it should have been updated in the care plan. Another resident, readmitted with hemiplegia and hemiparesis following a nontraumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage, contracture of the left hand, and weakness, was cognitively intact and required maximum assistance for bed mobility per a quarterly MDS. This resident stated they were supposed to get out of bed for two hours every day, but some NACs were not aware of this care requirement. Review of the resident’s March 2026 MAR/TAR showed an order to document the time the resident got up and the time they returned to bed daily. The report states that, overall, the facility failed to revise care plans accurately to reflect residents’ needs for three of four residents reviewed for care plan revision, placing them at risk for unidentified and unmet care needs and a diminished quality of life.
Failure to Implement Restorative Nursing and Splint/Brace Programs After Therapy Discharge
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide restorative nursing services, including range of motion (ROM) exercises and splint/brace assistance, to maintain or prevent decline in mobility and contractures for two residents with significant motor impairments. The facility’s undated Restorative Nursing Services policy stated that residents would receive restorative care as needed to achieve and maintain optimal functioning and that residents may initiate a restorative program upon discharge from rehabilitative care. Despite this, surveyors found that residents with documented hemiplegia, hemiparesis, weakness, and contractures were not placed on restorative programs and had no restorative interventions documented in their electronic health records (EHRs). Resident 1 was admitted with hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebrovascular disease, a left lower leg fracture, and weakness, and the admission MDS showed intact cognition, moderate assistance needs for bed mobility and transfers, and one-sided upper and lower extremity impairment. During observation, the resident was seen lying in bed with a bent inward left forearm and hand and reported no longer receiving therapy or nursing-assisted exercises. The care plan initiated in January showed no restorative services, and the care plan history and EHR contained no restorative nursing interventions. However, the PT discharge summary from February documented that restorative ROM and transfer programs had been established and trained, including PROM to the left upper and lower extremities and stand-by assist with transfers, and the OT discharge summary recommended a splint/brace to prevent contracture. The OT stated that the splint/brace was not tried due to lack of time before insurance was discontinued, and both the Director of Rehab and the MDS coordinator confirmed there was no restorative referral in the EHR and they were unaware of the recommendations. Resident 2 was readmitted with hemiplegia and hemiparesis following a nontraumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage, a left-hand contracture, and weakness, and the quarterly MDS showed intact cognition, maximum assistance needs for bed mobility, total assistance for transfers, bilateral upper and lower extremity impairment, and no therapy or restorative programs. The resident reported that therapy had been discontinued months earlier and that no restorative staff were assisting with exercises. The care plan and EHR showed no restorative services. OT evaluation documented left upper extremity ROM impairment, a left-hand contracture, and prior use of a left orthotic to manage flexion tone, and the OT discharge summary recommended restorative care and assistance with donning/doffing the orthotic. The PT discharge summary recommended restorative programs if Medicaid Part B services did not continue. The Director of Rehab confirmed therapy was discontinued and that restorative nursing programs were recommended, but both the Director of Rehab and the MDS coordinator stated there were no restorative referrals in the EHR after readmission, and the MDS coordinator confirmed the resident had no restorative programs since readmission.
Failure to Implement Effective Fall and Toileting Interventions for High-Risk Resident
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide adequate supervision, identify fall trends, and implement progressive, resident-centered interventions for a resident with multiple falls and declining strength. The facility’s own Falls and Fall Risk Management policy required staff to identify interventions related to residents’ specific risks and causes to prevent falls and minimize complications. The resident’s Care Area Assessment identified cancer-related risks for pain, falls, and ADL decline, and stated that falls and urinary incontinence would be addressed in the care plan with an objective of improvement and risk minimization. However, the comprehensive care plan did not include a urinary or ADL care plan and contained no toileting plan, despite the resident’s identified risks and prior fall history. Over a series of falls, the resident repeatedly fell while attempting to toilet or move toward the bathroom, yet the facility did not recognize or address this pattern in its investigations or care planning. The resident had multiple unwitnessed falls: next to the bed while getting up to use the restroom, in the bathroom while standing to use the toilet, and near or in the bathroom on several occasions. Incident investigations and post-fall assessments documented environmental factors such as clutter, items on the floor, water on the floor, and issues with footwear, as well as the resident’s increasing weakness, impulsivity, poor safety awareness, and poor insight into limitations. Interventions documented in investigations and risk reviews included encouraging use of the front-wheeled walker, keeping the wheelchair and walker accessible, ensuring proper footwear and non-skid socks, and providing resident education on safe transfers, ambulation, and assistive device use. However, several of these planned interventions, including placement of the wheelchair and frequent rounding/toileting assistance, were not added to or reflected in the care plan as stated. Staff interviews further showed that the resident frequently fell while trying to go to the bathroom and that staff relied on verbal education and reminders to use the call light, even though the resident often did not use it. Staff acknowledged the resident’s impulsivity and tendency to get up independently despite instructions, and one staff member stated that nursing assistants were verbally instructed to offer bathroom assistance, but this intervention was not documented in the care plan. The resident’s bed remained the one furthest from the bathroom throughout the stay, and none of the facility’s investigations identified the trend of bathroom-related falls or addressed toileting options in the care plan. Ultimately, the resident sustained a left ankle fracture after another bathroom-related fall, requiring transfer to the emergency department for evaluation and treatment, and later records documented additional fractures and a decline in condition. The surveyors concluded that the facility’s failures placed residents at risk of repeated falls and injuries.
Failure to Monitor Urinary Retention After Foley Removal Leading to Prolonged Pain
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to adequately assess and monitor a resident for complications associated with an indwelling urinary catheter and urinary retention, particularly after catheter removal. The resident had a history of acute kidney injury due to urinary retention, which improved after Foley catheter placement in the hospital. Hospital discharge documentation indicated the catheter was placed for acute urinary retention, was deemed permanent, and included instructions that, given the resident’s significant retention and acute renal failure, staff at the skilled nursing facility should not attempt Foley removal. The facility’s catheter care plan directed staff to empty the catheter as needed and record output in milliliters, but review of the last 30 days of documentation showed continence was not rated due to the indwelling catheter and there was no documented urinary output in milliliters on the treatment administration records. The resident had a scheduled urology appointment at which the urinary catheter was discontinued. Upon return from this appointment, nursing documentation initially indicated no new orders, and an alert note later stated the catheter was discontinued and staff were monitoring for retention or pain. However, there was no documented bladder assessment or urinary output following catheter removal. Nursing assistant documentation showed that the resident did not void on the evening shift that same day. Despite the catheter having been removed, the treatment administration record showed staff continued to document provision of catheter care on subsequent shifts when no catheter was in place. Over the next day, the resident experienced vomiting, decreased oral intake, and an altered level of consciousness, with vital signs showing tachycardia and low blood pressure, and staff documented decreased urine output. A bladder scan performed later revealed more than 2000–2500 milliliters of urine in the bladder, and an indwelling catheter was reinserted, initially draining a large volume of urine. The provider note indicated the resident had not eaten since the prior night, was unable to hold down fluids, and staff were unsure whether the resident had urinated in incontinence briefs, with no wet briefs reported since the resident’s return from the hospital after catheter removal. The provider expressed concern that the documented early-morning wet brief might not be accurate given the large bladder volume on scan and stated this should require further investigation. Subsequent notes described the resident moaning and complaining of pain, with limited urine output in the catheter bag and staff flushing and then replacing the catheter due to continued complaints. Interviews with the resident, the roommate, and staff indicated the resident was crying out and moaning in pain, the roommate repeatedly alerted staff that the resident was not urinating and that the catheter was not draining, and staff had to seek assistance to replace the catheter. Facility leadership and clinical staff later acknowledged that typical practice after catheter removal would include contacting the provider, placing the resident on alert, performing post-void residuals with bladder scans, and documenting monitoring, which was not done in this case.
Medication Administration Delays, Documentation Errors, and Use of Expired Insulin
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure sufficient nursing staff with appropriate competencies and skill sets to administer medications according to professional standards of practice, facility policy, and prescriber orders. The facility’s medication administration policy required medications to be given as prescribed, in accordance with manufacturers’ specifications and good nursing principles, with no expired medications used, and doses administered within 60 minutes of the scheduled time and documented immediately after administration. Multiple residents reported that agency nurses often gave medications late, did not read full instructions, or were slow in bringing medications, and that routinely scheduled medications were not consistently provided without residents having to ask. Surveyors observed several specific medication administration failures. For a resident with diabetes, an LPN drew up and administered Humalog/Lispro insulin from a multi-dose vial that had been opened and dated “02/16” with no year, making it expired per policy, and administered the dose nearly 1 hour and 45 minutes after it was due. Another resident with care plan instructions to receive medications as ordered had multiple scheduled medications (Gabapentin, Oxybutynin, Baclofen, and Tizanidine) that were ordered at specific times throughout the day; the LPN was observed administering all four together and acknowledged that at least one (Tizanidine) was late, while the resident reported that receiving them together at that time was typical and not at their request. For another diabetic resident, an RN checked blood sugar and prepared sliding scale Humalog/Lispro insulin almost two hours after the scheduled time; the resident refused the insulin, stating they had already finished lunch. Additional deficiencies were identified with other residents’ pain and scheduled medications. One resident with a pain care plan and an order for Methocarbamol four times daily at set times approached the cart requesting Methocarbamol and Tylenol; the RN initially stated the Methocarbamol had already been given, but then administered it two hours after it was due when the resident pointed out the scheduled timing. For another resident with a risk for pain care plan and Tramadol ordered three times daily at specific times, an LPN retrieved a PRN pain medication while the electronic record showed no 8:00 AM medications documented; the LPN stated they had given them but had not yet documented. Later, an RN prepared the 2:00 PM Tramadol dose, and review of the narcotic count showed a discrepancy between the number of pills documented and the number remaining in the card. The RN stated they had given the 8:00 AM Tramadol but had not signed it out, then signed out both the 8:00 AM and 2:00 PM doses at that time. Residents interviewed consistently reported that medications were sometimes or frequently late, that agency nurses did not always follow instructions, and that they often had to request medications that were routinely scheduled.
Trusted data from CMS and state health departments
Every citation, penalty and Plan of Correction is sourced from public CMS records (latest release May 27, 2026) and official state health department websites — never guesswork.
Trusted by long-term care providers and associations.
