Willow Springs Care And Rehabilitation
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Yakima, Washington.
- Location
- 4007 Tieton Drive, Yakima, Washington 98908
- CMS Provider Number
- 505367
- Inspections on file
- 37
- Latest survey
- July 25, 2025
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 21
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Willow Springs Care And Rehabilitation during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
The facility did not procure food from approved or satisfactory sources and failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food according to professional standards.
Multiple areas, including shower rooms, resident bathrooms, and the laundry room, were found to be unsafe and unsanitary due to issues such as exposed drywall, broken fixtures, dirty surfaces, and non-functioning equipment. Staff interviews revealed inconsistent reporting and tracking of maintenance needs, with some repairs left incomplete or unaddressed for extended periods. Facility leadership acknowledged the deficiencies and the need for repairs and cleaning.
A resident with a history of heart failure and hypertension experienced a fall resulting in ongoing pain and a delayed diagnosis of a hip fracture. Despite multiple complaints of pain and increased use of pain medication, nursing staff did not notify the physician of the change in condition for four days, contrary to facility policy.
The facility did not review and validate PASARR screenings or send required Level 2 referrals for two residents with serious mental illness, despite documentation indicating the need for further assessment. The omissions included missing diagnoses and lack of evidence that the necessary referrals were made, as confirmed by the Social Service Director.
The facility did not accurately document actual nursing staff hours on daily postings for a majority of reviewed shifts, with posted hours not matching the hours actually worked. The ADON was unaware of these inaccuracies, which prevented residents, families, and visitors from knowing the true nursing staff hours.
The facility failed to reimburse personal funds to the State Office of Financial Recovery within 30 days for four deceased residents, as required by policy. The funds were returned late, ranging from 31 to 71 days after the deadline. The Business Office Manager acknowledged the process should have been completed within the stipulated timeframe.
The facility failed to review and validate PASARR for four residents, neglecting to send required Level 2 referrals for those with positive Level 1 screens indicating potential SMI or ID/DD. Staff interviews revealed a lack of awareness and process for ensuring PASARR accuracy, risking inappropriate placement and care for residents with mental health conditions.
The facility failed to discard expired medications from two medication carts and did not consistently monitor the medication storage refrigerator's temperature. Expired Albuterol inhalers, arthritis pain gel, ondansetron, and Ipratropium were found. The facility's policy required twice-daily temperature checks for vaccine storage, but only once-daily checks were documented, contrary to CDC guidance.
The facility failed to maintain effective infection control practices, as staff did not adhere to hand hygiene protocols or use appropriate PPE for residents on transmission-based precautions. Environmental cleaning was also inadequate, with stained furniture and soiled equipment not being properly disinfected. Additionally, non-EPA registered chemicals were used for cleaning resident rooms, including those on contact enteric precautions.
The facility failed to issue a written bed hold notice during hospital transfers for two residents, as required by their policy. One resident, who was cognitively intact, did not receive the notice, while another resident's power of attorney was informed of the transfer but not provided with the bed hold documentation. The DON acknowledged that the notice was not always completed during emergency transfers.
A facility failed to provide trauma-informed care for a resident with PTSD from military service. The resident's care plan lacked trigger-specific interventions, and trauma screenings did not document discussions of PTSD or triggers. Staff interviews revealed gaps in the trauma screening process, leading to inadequate identification and management of the resident's trauma-related needs.
A facility failed to maintain a medication error rate below five percent, resulting in a 12% error rate. Two residents received incorrect insulin administration due to staff not priming insulin pens and not holding the needle in the skin for the required time. The LPN involved was unaware of the correct procedure, and the DON confirmed the errors.
The facility failed to notify the LTC Ombudsman about the transfers of three residents, as required by their policy. Despite the policy mandating notification, there was no documentation for the transfers of residents with conditions such as COPD and diabetes. Interviews revealed that the Social Services Director was responsible for notifications but did not consistently provide them, and the Administrator confirmed the protocol was not followed.
A facility failed to effectively plan the discharge of a resident with a stroke, diabetes, and anxiety, who wished to return home. Despite being cleared by therapy and having caregiver support arranged, the discharge plan was not documented or executed. The resident's representative was hesitant due to legal issues with the home, leading to the resident staying long-term against their wishes. The lack of documentation and re-evaluation of discharge needs contributed to the deficiency.
Failure to Follow Professional Standards for Food Procurement and Service
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to procure food from sources that are approved or considered satisfactory and did not store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards. This deficiency was identified during the survey process, indicating that the facility did not meet regulatory requirements for food safety and handling. No additional details about specific residents, staff, or events are provided in the report.
Failure to Maintain Safe and Sanitary Resident and Laundry Areas
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain a safe, functional, and sanitary environment in multiple areas, including two shower rooms, two resident bathrooms, and the laundry room. Observations revealed significant issues such as the presence of black slimy substances on shower walls, missing tiles exposing drywall, deep gouges in walls, loose grab bars, and unsanitary conditions including strong odors of urine and visible stains. In one shower room, the bathtub was used for storage of briefs, clothes, and other items, and the hand-washing sink and paper towel dispenser were found to be dirty and rusted. The resident bathroom had a cracked toilet seat with sharp edges, a smashed trash can with holes, and a hand-washing sink detached from the wall. Interviews with staff indicated a lack of awareness and inconsistent use of the facility's maintenance tracking system (TELS). The Administrator and Maintenance Director both stated that maintenance issues should be reported and tracked through TELS, but several staff members reported using informal methods such as verbal notifications or walkie-talkies. Maintenance staff were unaware of several of the observed deficiencies, and repairs to some items, such as the sink, were either temporary or incomplete. The Director of Nursing Services acknowledged that the shower rooms and restrooms were not in good functioning condition for resident use. In the laundry room, both the clean and dirty areas were found to be in disrepair, with broken washers and dryers, gaps under exterior doors, dirty floors and walls, moldy trim, and non-functioning ceiling vents filled with dirt and lint. The Laundry and Housekeeping Supervisor reported that the broken machines had been out of order for months and that there was no known plan for repair or replacement. Staff had resorted to makeshift solutions, such as using towels to block door gaps and duct tape to secure broken floor stripping. Facility leadership acknowledged the need for repairs and cleaning in the laundry room.
Failure to Notify Physician of Significant Change After Resident Fall
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to notify the physician of a significant change in condition for one resident following a fall. The resident, who had a history of heart failure and hypertension, was found on the floor in their room and subsequently complained of pain in the right arm and hip. Despite repeated complaints of pain and administration of Tylenol for pain management, there was no documentation that the physician was notified of the fall, the new pain complaints, or the increased use of pain medication for four days. An x-ray was not ordered until four days after the fall, at which point a right hip fracture was identified. Interviews with staff and review of records confirmed that the nurse on duty did not notify the physician as required by facility policy, which mandates immediate notification of the physician for any significant change in a resident's condition. The resident and their representative both reported ongoing pain and a delay in diagnostic intervention. The Director of Nursing Services acknowledged that the expectation was for immediate physician notification following such incidents, and that this protocol was not followed in this case.
Failure to Complete Required PASARR Level 2 Referrals for Residents with Mental Health Diagnoses
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to properly review and validate the Preadmission Screening and Resident Reviews (PASARR) for two residents with mental health diagnoses. For one resident admitted with major depressive disorder, insomnia, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), the PASARR documented depression but omitted PTSD and insomnia, and there was no evidence that a required Level 2 referral was sent for further evaluation. For another resident admitted with major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, anxiety disorder, and borderline personality disorder, the PASARR indicated the presence of serious mental illness (SMI) and noted that a Level 2 referral was required, but no evidence of such a referral was found in the medical record. The facility's policy required that if a Level 1 PASARR indicated possible SMI, intellectual disability (ID), or related disorder (RD), a Level 2 referral should be made to the state PASARR representative for further assessment. The Social Service Director acknowledged responsibility for reviewing PASARRs on admission and sending Level 2 referrals when indicated, but admitted that the required process was not followed for these two residents. This lapse was identified during a review of records and staff interview.
Inaccurate Daily Nurse Staffing Postings
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to accurately document the actual hours worked by nursing staff on the daily nurse staffing postings for 27 out of 45 shifts reviewed between 07/01/2025 and 07/15/2025. Record review showed that the posted nursing hours did not match the actual hours worked by nursing employees on these shifts. During an interview, the Assistant Director of Nursing stated they were unaware that the daily nurse postings were inaccurate and expected the postings to reflect the actual hours worked. This discrepancy prevented residents, family members, and visitors from knowing the true nursing staff hours.
Delayed Reimbursement of Deceased Residents' Funds
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that personal funds of deceased residents were reimbursed to the State Office of Financial Recovery (OFR) within the required 30-day timeframe. This deficiency was identified for four residents who had passed away, with their personal funds remaining in the facility's trust accounts. The facility's policy mandates that personal funds should be returned to the OFR within 30 days of a resident's death if the resident received long-term care services paid by the department. For Resident 252, who passed away on June 8, 2024, the $100.08 in personal funds was not returned to the OFR until August 21, 2024, which was 44 days late. Similarly, Resident 253, who died on May 12, 2024, had $40.33 returned 71 days late. Resident 254's funds of $70.79 were returned 31 days late after their death on February 17, 2024. Lastly, Resident 255, who passed away on May 17, 2024, had $1678.83 returned 66 days late. The Business Office Manager acknowledged that the process was to return funds within 30 days and that these delays should not have occurred.
Failure to Validate PASARR and Send Level 2 Referrals
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to properly review and validate the Preadmission Screening and Resident Reviews (PASARR) for four residents, which is essential to ensure individuals with serious mental illness (SMI) or intellectual/developmental disabilities (ID/DD) are not inappropriately placed in nursing homes. Specifically, the facility did not send the required Level 2 referral for residents who had a positive Level 1 PASARR, indicating potential SMI or ID/DD. This oversight was identified in the cases of four residents who had various diagnoses such as depression, anxiety, insomnia, bipolar disorder, and schizoaffective disorder. The PASARR documentation for these residents was either incomplete or not updated to reflect all relevant diagnoses, and no evidence of Level 2 referrals was found in their medical records. Interviews with facility staff revealed a lack of awareness and understanding of the PASARR process. The Social Service Director and Assistant admitted they were unaware that a positive SMI indicator on a PASARR required a Level 2 evaluation before admission. They also acknowledged that they did not have a process in place to review PASARR documents for accuracy. The Director of Nursing Services was also unaware of the PASARR process, indicating a systemic issue within the facility regarding compliance with PASARR regulations. This lack of proper procedure and oversight placed residents at risk of not receiving appropriate care and services for their needs.
Expired Medications and Inadequate Temperature Monitoring
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that expired medications were discarded from two of the three medication carts, specifically Team 1 and Team 3. During an observation, it was found that Team 1's medication cart contained four expired Albuterol inhalers and two expired tubes of arthritis pain gel. Similarly, Team 3's medication cart had two expired bottles of ondansetron and one expired pack of Ipratropium. Staff members, including LPNs, acknowledged that expired medications should be disposed of and reordered as necessary, but this was not consistently done. Additionally, the facility did not consistently monitor the temperature of the medication storage refrigerator, which contained vaccines. The policy required twice-daily temperature checks, but the facility only documented temperatures once daily. This inconsistency was noted after the facility received new vaccines, including pneumococcal and influenza vaccines. The Director of Nursing Services confirmed that the facility's process involved night shift nurses checking and recording the temperature once a day, which did not align with the policy or CDC guidance.
Inadequate Infection Control and Environmental Cleaning
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain an effective infection prevention and control program, as evidenced by multiple observations and interviews. Staff members did not adhere to hand hygiene protocols, particularly when exiting isolation precaution rooms. For instance, a housekeeper and a housekeeping supervisor were unaware of the requirement to wash hands with soap and water after exiting a C. diff positive room, opting instead to use hand sanitizer. Additionally, a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) was observed administering medications and handling equipment without performing hand hygiene between tasks, which is a critical step in preventing the spread of infections. The facility also failed to implement appropriate transmission-based precautions (TBP) for residents requiring such measures. Two residents, one with a multidrug-resistant organism and another with an indwelling catheter, were not provided care with the necessary personal protective equipment (PPE) by staff. Nursing assistants and the Director of Rehabilitation were observed assisting these residents without wearing gowns or gloves, despite the presence of signage indicating the need for contact precautions and enhanced barrier precautions. Environmental cleaning and disinfection practices were inadequate, as evidenced by the condition of furniture and resident equipment. Chairs and sofas in common areas were stained and not cleaned regularly, and sit-to-stand machines used for resident transfers were visibly soiled and not disinfected between uses. Furthermore, the chemicals used for cleaning resident rooms, including those on contact enteric precautions, were not EPA-registered disinfectants, which are necessary for effectively reducing the risk of infection transmission. Staff responsible for cleaning were unaware of the appropriate disinfectants to use, and the facility's leadership did not ensure the use of proper cleaning agents.
Failure to Provide Bed Hold Notice During Hospital Transfers
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide a written notice of bed hold to two residents during their transfer to the hospital, which is a requirement according to the facility's Bed Hold Policy Notification 2024. Resident 7, who was cognitively intact and required substantial assistance for activities of daily living, was transferred to the hospital without receiving the bed hold policy to review and sign. This omission was confirmed during an interview with Resident 7, who stated that they did not receive the necessary documentation at the time of their hospital transfer. Similarly, Resident 9, who had a history of stroke, respiratory disease, and heart disease, and required substantial assistance for daily activities, was transferred to the hospital without a bed hold notice being documented in their medical record. Although the resident's power of attorney was notified of the transfer, the bed hold notice was not completed. The Director of Nursing Services acknowledged that in cases of emergency transfers, the bed hold notice was not always completed, though it should have been sent to the resident or their representative within 24 hours of the transfer.
Failure to Provide Trauma-Informed Care for Resident with PTSD
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide culturally competent, trauma-informed care for a resident with a history of trauma, specifically Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) resulting from military service in the Vietnam War. The resident, who was admitted with diagnoses including insomnia and PTSD, had a comprehensive assessment indicating severely impaired cognition and required extensive assistance for activities of daily living. However, the resident's care plan did not include trigger-specific interventions or identify the resident's triggers, despite the risk of depression and PTSD being noted. The facility's policy on trauma-informed care required social services staff to be trained on screening and identifying triggers associated with re-traumatization. However, the trauma screenings conducted for the resident did not document any discussion of the resident's PTSD diagnosis or person-centered triggers. Interviews with staff revealed that the trauma screening process involved interviewing or using trauma-related questions, but the resident did not disclose any trauma. The Director of Nursing Services stated that the expectation was for staff to ensure timely completion and follow-up of trauma screenings, which was not adequately done in this case.
Medication Administration Errors with Insulin Pens
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain a medication error rate of less than five percent, resulting in a 12% error rate during a survey. This was identified through observations, interviews, and record reviews involving two residents out of six observed during 25 medication administration opportunities. The errors were related to the improper administration of insulin using insulin pens. Specifically, the staff did not follow the correct procedure for priming the insulin pen and holding the needle in the skin for the required duration, as outlined in the facility's policy and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's instructions for use. Resident 21, who has diabetes and dementia, was administered insulin incorrectly when the LPN held the needle in the skin for only three seconds instead of the required time. Similarly, Resident 43, who has diabetes, heart disease, and depression, received insulin without the pen being primed, and the needle was held for only three seconds. The LPN involved was unaware of the priming requirement and did not count the time the needle was held in the skin. The Director of Nursing Services confirmed that the nurses should have been priming the insulin pen and holding the needle for the correct duration to ensure accurate dosing.
Failure to Notify LTC Ombudsman of Resident Transfers
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to notify the Office of the State Long Term Care Ombudsman about the transfer or discharge of three residents, which is a requirement according to their policy. The policy, titled 'Admission, Transfer and Discharge - Facility Initiated Transfers and Discharges,' mandates that a copy of the notice of transfers or discharges be sent to the Ombudsman. However, for Residents 2, 3, and 4, there was no documentation indicating that such notifications were made. Resident 2, who was cognitively intact, was transferred to an emergency room for evaluation and treatment without the Ombudsman being informed. Similarly, Resident 3, also cognitively intact, was transferred to an acute care hospital, and Resident 4, with moderately impaired cognition, was transferred to an acute care hospital emergency room, both without the required notification. Interviews with facility staff revealed inconsistencies in the notification process. The Regional LTC Ombudsman confirmed that they had not received any notices of transfers or discharges from the facility for some time. Staff B, the Social Services Director, admitted responsibility for notifying the Ombudsman but acknowledged that notifications were not consistently provided. Staff A, the Administrator, stated that the facility protocol required weekly transmission of transfer/discharge notices to the Ombudsman, which was not adhered to, leading to the deficiency.
Failure in Discharge Planning for Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop and implement an effective discharge planning process for Resident 5, who was admitted with diagnoses including a stroke, diabetes, and anxiety. The comprehensive assessment indicated that Resident 5 required moderate to maximum assistance for activities of daily living and had moderately impaired cognition. Despite Resident 5's expressed goal to return home, with arrangements made for caregiver support, the discharge plan was not executed, and there was no documentation of a discharge care plan in the resident's medical record. Interviews revealed that the Social Services Director (SSD) was responsible for the discharge process but had not engaged in further discharge planning with Resident 5 since June 2024. The SSD acknowledged that the resident's representative was hesitant about the discharge due to legal issues with Resident 5's home, and no safe discharge location was identified. The facility's administrator confirmed awareness of the discharge issues and stated that the resident was cleared by therapy to return home. However, the decision for Resident 5 to stay long-term in the facility was made by the resident's representative/Power of Attorney, despite the resident's desire to return home. The lack of documentation and re-evaluation of discharge needs in the medical record contributed to the deficiency, as the facility did not involve the interdisciplinary team or address the resident's goals and needs effectively.
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.
