The Terraces At Skyline
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Seattle, Washington.
- Location
- 715 9th Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98104
- CMS Provider Number
- 505469
- Inspections on file
- 20
- Latest survey
- August 7, 2025
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 18
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at The Terraces At Skyline during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident's unexpected death was not promptly investigated or reported according to facility policy and state guidelines. The incident was not logged on the facility's incident reporting log until 19 days after the event, and staff confirmed that both the investigation and reporting were delayed.
The facility did not submit the required direct care staffing information to CMS for the fourth quarter of 2023 on time. Despite the facility's policy requiring timely electronic submission of staffing data, Staff J was unsure if the data was submitted, and Staff A confirmed it was not. This resulted in CMS having inaccurate staffing data, potentially affecting resident care.
The facility failed to ensure a homelike dining environment by allowing LPNs to administer medications during meals in the dining room, affecting six residents. Staff admitted that medications should be given in residents' rooms, and care plans did not include dining room administration. This oversight risked diminishing residents' quality of life.
The facility failed to provide the required RN coverage for six days, as revealed by interviews and record reviews. Despite having a policy mandating sufficient staffing and a minimum of 0.55 hours of RN care per resident per day, the facility's records showed a lack of eight-hour RN coverage on specific dates. The Staffing Coordinator could not explain the lapse, and the Administrator confirmed the requirement for RN coverage, acknowledging the facility's failure to meet this expectation.
The facility failed to properly label and store medications and supplies in two medication rooms, risking compromised effectiveness. On the Seventh Floor, a tuberculin vial was expired by three days. On the Eighth Floor, expired amoxicillin and catheters were found. Staff acknowledged these items should have been discarded.
The facility failed to discard expired food items and maintain a working thermometer in the Kitchen Walk-In Refrigerator, as observed during a survey. Expired Impossible Burger patties and raw pork chops were found, and two broken thermometers were identified, preventing accurate temperature monitoring. Staff acknowledged these issues, which contravened the facility's food safety policies.
A facility failed to ensure proper hand hygiene during meal tray distribution and medication administration. A CNA did not perform hand hygiene when entering and exiting resident rooms, including those requiring Enhanced Barrier Precautions. An LPN improperly handled medications by pouring them into gloved hands and taking medication bubble cards into resident rooms, contrary to facility policy. These actions increased the risk of infection for residents, visitors, and staff.
A resident was administered an antidepressant medication without obtaining informed consent beforehand, contrary to the facility's policy. The medication was prescribed and administered in March, but consent was not signed until late May. This was confirmed by the Resident Care Manager and the Corporate Director of Health Services, who both acknowledged the lapse in procedure.
The facility failed to assess and document self-medication administration for two residents. One resident self-administered enoxaparin injections without an assessment or physician order, while another resident self-administered multiple medications without proper documentation or orders. The facility did not follow its policy requiring assessments, orders, and care plan updates for self-medication.
A facility failed to provide a written transfer notice to a resident and their representative, as required by policy. The resident was transferred to a hospital, but the facility only notified the family by phone, contrary to the policy that mandates written notification. Staff interviews confirmed this practice, which did not align with the expectations of the Corporate Director of Health Services.
A resident was transferred to the hospital without being provided a bed hold notice, as required by the facility's policy. Staff interviews confirmed the oversight, and the Corporate Director of Health Services expected the notice to be given.
A resident admitted to hospice care experienced a delay in the completion of a Significant Change in Status Assessment (SCSA) MDS, which was completed four days late. This delay was acknowledged by the MDS Coordinator and the Corporate Director of Health Services, indicating a failure to adhere to the required 14-day timeline for assessments.
A facility failed to maintain consistent communication with hospice care for a resident, resulting in outdated hospice notes from December 2023 being the most recent available. Staff interviews revealed that hospice visit notes were not readily accessible, and there was a lack of coordination in care for the resident's left heel wound. This deficiency highlighted a failure in ensuring resident-centered care and treatment according to professional standards.
A resident's pressure ulcer was not properly assessed or documented, leading to a deficiency in care. The resident's left heel showed discoloration and later developed into a blister, which was treated as a pressure injury without proper staging. Staff interviews revealed a lack of documentation and clarity regarding the ulcer's stage, contrary to facility policy. This oversight placed the resident at risk for further deterioration.
Two residents with respiratory conditions were found with improperly labeled and stored oxygen supplies, including undated nasal cannulas and humidifier bottles. Staff interviews revealed a lack of physician orders and adherence to facility policy on oxygen administration, leading to a deficiency in respiratory care.
Failure to Timely Investigate and Report Unexpected Resident Death
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that an incident involving the unexpected death of a resident was investigated and reported in a timely manner. According to the facility's policy and the Washington State Guidelines Purple Book, an immediate investigation and prompt logging of such incidents are required. However, review of records showed that the resident's unexpected death was not logged on the incident reporting log until 19 days after the event, and the investigation was not initiated promptly. The online incident report was completed six days after the resident's death, and the incident was not included in the April incident log, only appearing in the May log after a significant delay. Interviews with facility staff, including the Director of Health Services and the Interim DON, confirmed that the incident was neither investigated nor reported in accordance with required timelines. Staff acknowledged that the reporting and investigation were not completed in a timely manner, and the incident was logged late. These actions were not consistent with both facility policy and state guidelines, which require immediate response and documentation for unexpected deaths, especially those that are suspicious or not clearly related to abuse or neglect.
Failure to Submit Timely Staffing Data to CMS
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure timely submission of direct care staffing information to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for the fourth quarter of the fiscal year 2023. This deficiency was identified during an interview and record review, which revealed that the Payroll Based Journal (PBJ) data, mandatory for reporting staffing information based on payroll data, was not submitted on time. The facility's policy, revised on July 1, 2024, mandates the electronic submission of complete and accurate staffing information, including agency and contract staff, in a uniform format as specified by CMS. However, Staff J, the Staffing/Central Supply Coordinator, was uncertain if the data for the fourth quarter of 2023 was submitted, and Staff A, the Administrator, confirmed that it was not submitted promptly. This failure resulted in CMS having inaccurate data related to nursing home staffing levels, potentially impacting resident care and services.
Medication Administration During Meals in Dining Room
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide a homelike dining environment by allowing the administration of medications during meals in the dining room, which was observed during two of three dining observations involving six residents. Licensed nurses were seen administering oral medications to residents in the dining room during breakfast and lunch meals, contrary to the facility's policy that medications should be administered in residents' rooms. Staff F, an LPN, was observed giving medications to two residents during breakfast, and later admitted that medications should not have been administered in the dining room. Similarly, Staff E, another LPN, was observed administering medications to four residents during breakfast and lunch, and acknowledged that due to short-staffing, they sometimes administered medications in the dining room. Interviews with facility staff, including the Resident Care Manager and the Corporate Health Services Director, confirmed that the expectation was for medications to be administered in residents' rooms unless specifically included in the care plan. However, a review of the comprehensive care plans for the involved residents did not indicate that medication administration in the dining room was part of their care plans. This oversight placed the residents at risk for a diminished quality of life, as the dining room environment was not intended for medication administration.
Failure to Provide Required RN Coverage
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide the required Registered Nurse (RN) coverage for six specific days, as identified in the report. This deficiency was discovered through interviews and record reviews, which revealed that the facility did not have RN coverage for eight hours on the dates of 10/07/2023, 10/08/2023, 10/15/2023, 10/21/2023, 10/22/2023, and 11/04/2023. The facility's policy, revised on 04/01/2024, mandates that staffing must be sufficient to ensure accurate direct care staffing information and that a minimum of 0.55 hours of direct nursing care per resident per day must be provided by RNs. Despite this policy, the Daily Nursing Staff Posting records confirmed the absence of the required RN coverage on the specified dates. During a joint record review and interview, the Staffing Coordinator acknowledged the lack of RN coverage on the identified dates but was unable to explain the reason for this lapse, despite stating that there was no staff shortage. The Administrator also confirmed the regulatory requirement for RN coverage and expressed the expectation that the facility should meet this requirement. The absence of RN coverage on these days placed residents at risk for inadequate assessments, delays in care services, unmet care needs, and a diminished quality of life, as per the findings of the report.
Improper Labeling and Storage of Medications and Supplies
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to properly label and store medications and medical supplies in two medication rooms, which could compromise the effectiveness of these items. On the Seventh Floor, a multidose vial of tuberculin was found in the refrigerator with an open date that exceeded the 30-day usage period, indicating it was expired by three days. Staff C, the Resident Care Manager, acknowledged that the tuberculin should have been discarded as it was past its expiration date. On the Eighth Floor, a bottle of amoxicillin with an expiration date that had already passed was found in the medication room's refrigerator. Additionally, expired medical supplies, including two intermittent catheters and one Foley catheter, were discovered. Staff N, a Registered Nurse, confirmed that these items were expired and should have been discarded. Staff D, another Resident Care Manager, and Staff B, the Corporate Director of Health Services, both stated that the expired medications and supplies should have been removed from the medication rooms.
Expired Food and Broken Thermometers Found in Kitchen
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to adhere to its food safety policies by not discarding expired food items and not maintaining a working thermometer in the Kitchen Walk-In Refrigerator. During an observation, a tray of Impossible Burger patties with a past use-by date and a tray of raw pork chops with an expired prep date were found in the refrigerator. Staff U, the Sous Chef, acknowledged the presence of these expired items and stated they would remove them. This indicates a lapse in the facility's policy that requires expired food to be removed immediately to prevent foodborne illness. Additionally, the facility did not ensure the proper monitoring of refrigerator temperatures as required by their policy. During the inspection, two thermometers in the Kitchen Walk-In Refrigerator were found to be broken, rendering them unable to provide accurate temperature readings. Staff U confirmed the malfunctioning state of the thermometers. The facility's policy mandates that temperatures in refrigeration units be checked daily and recorded to ensure food safety. The Administrator, Staff A, admitted that the expectation was to have a functioning thermometer inside the refrigerator and acknowledged the oversight in discarding expired foods promptly.
Infection Control Deficiencies in Hand Hygiene and Medication Administration
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure proper hand hygiene practices during meal tray distribution, as observed with Staff L, a Certified Nursing Assistant. Staff L was seen setting up meal trays for residents without performing hand hygiene before or after entering and exiting multiple resident rooms, including a room requiring Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP). Despite acknowledging the requirement to wash hands when entering and exiting EBP rooms, Staff L did not adhere to these protocols, as confirmed during interviews with the Resident Care Manager/Infection Preventionist and the Corporate Director of Health Services. Additionally, the facility did not follow infection control practices during medication administration for three residents. Staff E, an LPN, was observed preparing and administering medications by pouring them into their gloved hand before placing them in medication cups. This practice was repeated for Residents 6, 235, and 18, despite handling medication carts, bottles, and bubble cards with the same gloves. Staff E also took medication bubble cards into resident rooms, contrary to the facility's policy, which was confirmed by the Resident Care Manager and the Corporate Director of Health Services. The deficiencies in hand hygiene and medication administration practices placed residents, visitors, and staff at an increased risk of infection. The facility's policies on handwashing and medication administration were not followed, as evidenced by the actions of Staff L and Staff E. These lapses were identified through observations and interviews, highlighting a need for adherence to established infection control protocols to prevent contamination and infection.
Failure to Obtain Informed Consent for Antidepressant Medication
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure informed consent was obtained for an antidepressant medication before administration to a resident. The facility's policy on psychotropic drug use requires that residents or their responsible parties make an informed choice regarding the use of such medications, with potential risks and benefits explained beforehand. However, a review of the resident's records revealed that the antidepressant medication was prescribed on 03/19/2024 and administered starting 03/20/2024, but the consent was not signed until 05/28/2024. This oversight was confirmed during a joint record review and interview with the Resident Care Manager, who acknowledged that consent should have been obtained prior to the medication's administration. The Corporate Director of Health Services also stated that the expectation was for consent to be completed before the resident began taking the medication.
Failure to Assess and Document Self-Medication Administration
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that residents were properly evaluated and assessed for self-administration of medications, and did not obtain necessary physician orders for two residents. Resident 235, who had been self-administering enoxaparin injections since before their admission, continued to do so without an assessment, physician order, or care plan in place. Despite the resident's preference and history of self-administration, the facility staff did not conduct the required evaluations or update the care plan to reflect this practice. Similarly, Resident 20 was self-administering multiple medications, including Fluticasone Nasal Spray and Ponaris Nasal Solution, without the necessary physician orders or inclusion in their comprehensive care plan. The facility's records did not show a self-administration order for these medications, and the resident's care plan lacked documentation for self-medication administration. Observations revealed that medications were left at the resident's bedside for unsupervised use, further indicating a lack of proper oversight and documentation. The facility's policy required an interdisciplinary team assessment, physician orders, and care plan updates for residents who self-administer medications. However, these procedures were not followed for Residents 235 and 20, leading to a deficiency in ensuring safe and accurate medication administration. The lack of assessments and orders placed the residents at risk for potential medication errors and adverse effects.
Failure to Provide Written Transfer Notice
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide a written transfer or discharge notice to a resident and their representative, as required by their policy and regulatory standards. This deficiency was identified during a review of the case of a resident who was transferred to a hospital for further evaluation. The facility's policy, revised in April 2024, mandates that residents be notified in writing of the reasons for a transfer in a language and manner they can understand, and that this notice be documented in the resident's record by the facility and the physician. However, the review of the clinical health record, both electronic and paper, revealed no documentation of such a written notice being provided to the resident or their representative. Interviews with facility staff, including a Licensed Practical Nurse and the Resident Care Manager, confirmed that the standard practice was to notify family or representatives of hospital transfers by phone, rather than in writing. This practice was contrary to the facility's policy and the expectations stated by the Corporate Director of Health Services, who emphasized the requirement for written notification. The lack of written notice placed the resident and their representative at risk of not having the opportunity to make informed decisions regarding the transfer or discharge.
Failure to Provide Bed Hold Notice During Hospital Transfer
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide a bed hold notice to a resident or their representative during a transfer to the hospital, as required by their policy. The policy, revised in January 2024, mandates that written information regarding bed hold policies be given prior to a resident's transfer to the hospital or when they go on therapeutic leave. However, a review of the clinical health records for the resident, who was transferred to the hospital on May 28, 2024, showed no documentation of a bed hold notice being offered. Interviews with facility staff, including a Licensed Practical Nurse and the Resident Care Manager, confirmed that the bed hold notice was not provided to the resident or their representative. Both staff members acknowledged that the notice should have been given. Additionally, the Corporate Director of Health Services stated that it was their expectation for the facility to provide the bed hold notice, indicating a lapse in following the established protocol.
Delayed Completion of SCSA MDS for Resident in Hospice Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to complete a Significant Change in Status Assessment (SCSA) Minimum Data Set (MDS) in a timely manner for a resident who experienced a significant change in condition. According to the Long-Term Care Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) 3.0 User's Manual, an SCSA is required to be completed within 14 days of a significant change in a resident's status. In this case, the resident was admitted to hospice care, which is considered a significant change requiring an SCSA. However, the assessment was completed four days late, placing the resident at risk for unmet care needs and a diminished quality of life. The report details that the resident was admitted to hospice care on September 22, 2023, and the SCSA MDS with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of September 27, 2023, was not completed until October 10, 2024. This delay was confirmed during an interview with the MDS Coordinator, who acknowledged that the assessment was completed late according to the RAI manual. The Corporate Director of Health Services also stated that they expected the SCSA MDS to be completed in a timely manner, indicating a lapse in adherence to the required timeline for assessments.
Failure in Communication with Hospice Services
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure resident-centered care and treatment were provided in accordance with professional standards of practice by not maintaining consistent communication and collaboration with hospice care for a resident receiving hospice services. The deficiency was identified for a resident who was admitted to hospice care in September 2023, but the most recent hospice notes available in the facility's records were from December 2023. This lack of updated documentation indicated a failure in communication between the facility and hospice care, which is essential for coordinating care and ensuring the resident's needs are met. During interviews, staff members acknowledged the absence of recent hospice notes in the resident's records. A Licensed Practical Nurse was unable to find any hospice visit notes related to the resident's left heel wound in the Electronic Health Record (EHR) or paper chart. The Resident Care Manager admitted that they did not expect hospice notes to be readily available but could request them if needed. The Corporate Director of Health Services expressed that there should be both verbal and written communication to coordinate care and that hospice notes should be readily available in the facility after a hospice visit. The lack of recent hospice documentation placed the resident at risk of not receiving necessary comfort care services and unmet care needs.
Failure to Properly Assess and Document Pressure Ulcer
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to properly assess and document a pressure ulcer for a resident, identified as Resident 9, which led to a deficiency in care. Initially, the resident's left heel showed discoloration, but it was not identified or documented as a pressure ulcer. Despite the presence of a blister that opened and was treated as a pressure injury, the facility did not stage the wound as required. Interviews with staff revealed a lack of clarity and documentation regarding the staging of the pressure ulcer, which was expected to be done once the blister opened. Further observations and interviews indicated that the pressure ulcer was unstageable with parts classified as Stage 2, yet this was not documented in the facility's records. The facility's policy required thorough assessment and documentation of pressure ulcers, including staging, which was not adhered to in this case. The lack of proper documentation and assessment placed the resident at risk for deterioration of their pressure ulcer and a diminished quality of life.
Improper Oxygen Supply Management for Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain, label, date, and properly store oxygen tubing and supplies for two residents, leading to a deficiency in respiratory care. Resident 23, who was admitted with pulmonary fibrosis, was observed using an oxygen concentrator and a portable oxygen device without proper labeling or storage of the nasal cannula and humidifier bottle. The nasal cannula was found uncovered on the concentrator and the tubing from the portable device was on the floor, both undated. Staff interviews revealed that there were no physician orders for oxygen or protocols for changing the tubing and humidifier bottle, despite documentation indicating the need for oxygen since May 2024. Resident 20, diagnosed with chronic respiratory failure, was also found with improperly labeled and stored oxygen equipment. The nasal cannula connected to the oxygen concentrator and the portable oxygen tank were not labeled or dated. Interviews with staff indicated that Resident 20 managed their own oxygen and requested tubing changes as needed, but there were no physician orders for oxygen therapy prior to August 2024. The facility's policy required oxygen supplies to be dated and stored correctly, which was not adhered to in these cases. The deficiency was identified through observations, interviews, and record reviews, highlighting the facility's failure to follow its own policy on oxygen administration. Staff acknowledged the lack of proper documentation and storage practices, which placed the residents at risk for unmet care needs and potential respiratory complications. The absence of physician orders and proper labeling and storage of oxygen supplies were central to the deficiency identified by the surveyors.
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.
