BEACON HILL REHABILITATION

128 BEACON HILL DRIVE, LONGVIEW, WA 98632 (360) 423-4060
For profit - Corporation 67 Beds THE ENSIGN GROUP Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
85/100
#3 of 190 in WA
Share this report: Email Text Facebook WhatsApp
Last Inspection: March 2025

Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.

Overview

Beacon Hill Rehabilitation in Longview, Washington, has received a Trust Grade of B+, indicating they are above average and recommended for families seeking care. They rank #3 out of 190 facilities in Washington, placing them in the top half, and #2 out of 4 in Cowlitz County, meaning only one local option is better. The facility is newly inspected, so there are no clear trends yet, but they reported five issues, including one serious incident where a resident experienced worsening hallucinations without timely physician notification, which could have led to untreated medical conditions. Staffing is average with a 3/5 rating and a turnover rate of 45%, which is slightly below the state average, and they have not incurred any fines, suggesting good compliance with regulations. However, specific concerns were noted regarding resident-centered activities not aligning with preferences and delays in following bowel intervention protocols, which could negatively impact residents' quality of life.

Trust Score
B+
85/100
In Washington
#3/190
Top 1%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Too New
0 → 5 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
45% turnover. Near Washington's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Washington facilities.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 41 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Washington. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
✓ Good
Only 5 deficiencies on record. Cleaner than most facilities. Minor issues only.
★★★★★
5.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★★★★
5.0
Inspection Score
↔
Stable
: 0 issues
2025: 5 issues

The Good

  • 5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (45%)

    3 points below Washington average of 48%

Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 45%

Near Washington avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Chain: THE ENSIGN GROUP

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 5 deficiencies on record

1 actual harm
Mar 2025 5 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** . Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure ongoing physician notifications were made when the residen...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** . Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure ongoing physician notifications were made when the resident experienced a change of condition in conjunction with a medication discontinuation and the need for a significant change in treatment for 1 of 7 sampled residents (162) reviewed for notification of change. Resident 162 experienced harm when the resident had ongoing increasing visual hallucinations (mice, snakes, does not feel safe, lost appetite due to snakes in the resident's room, people in the resident's room, tadpoles, river rats that can bite you, being held hostage, and stated, This is terrible.) and the physician was not consulted about the ongoing increasing hallucinations and a significant need for treatment. This failure placed residents at risk for untreated medical conditions and a diminished quality of life. Findings included . Resident 162 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The 5-day Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 12/05/2024, indicated Resident 16 was moderately cognitively impaired. Physician orders showed Resident 162 was started on Seroquel (an antipsychotic medication used to treat psychosis and other major psychological mood disorders) 50 mg orally at bedtime for hallucinations during the resident's most recent hospitalization and when readmitted to the facility on [DATE]. A pharmacist recommendation, signed by the physician on 01/09/2025, reduced Resident 162's Seroquel dose to 25 mg orally for 1 week, and then to stop the Seroquel medication. A nursing note, dated 01/12/2025 at 10:10 AM, documented, Res [Resident 162] on alert for decreased Seroquel order. Res vital signs stable; when asked how [the resident] slept, res stated . restless 'because of the mice.' LN [Licensed Nurse] asked [the resident] to clarify if . hearing or seeing the mice. Res stated . was 'watching them run across the ceiling.' Res was matter of fact when reporting and was not in distress related to the 'mice.' The electronic health record (EHR) showed Resident 162's Seroquel ended on 01/15/2025 per pharmacy recommendations. A nursing note, dated 01/17/2025 at 12:26 AM, documented, Res c/o [complained of] having some cannabis missing from [the resident's] room, as well as seeing mice and snakes coming out of the vents in the walls.Assured [the resident] is safe and no mice or snakes are in [the resident's] room. A nursing note, dated 01/18/2025 at 1:02 AM, documented, Res is received in bed awake. Res talking about people in [the] room looking at [the resident]. Res states . doesn't feel safe. Res is assured no one was in [the] room. A nursing note, dated 01/19/2025 at 3:40 PM, documented, On alert for c/o seeing 'snakes' in [the] room. Res declined eating lunch, indicating [a lost appetite] after seeing 'snakes.' [Resident 162] indicated [knowing] it is in [the resident's] head, but it is bothersome. A nursing note, dated 01/20/2025 at 4:21 AM, documented, Res cont [continues] with hallucinations. Res stated [knowing] the 'snakes,' 'tadpoles,' and 'mice' are not real, but . can still see them. Upon giving scheduled medication, res stated . wasn't sure if this LN was real. Reassured and reoriented res. An eMAR-Medication Administration Note, dated 01/27/2025 at 5:53 AM, documented, Res cont with hallucinations. Res hollering for help when awake this shift. Res adamant that there's a river rat in [the] room. Tried to reassured res, but res was insistent it was there and had this LN put [the resident's] shoes on while in bed so that the river rat would not be able to bite [the resident's] feet. NAC [Nursing Assistant Certified] reported to this LN that res thinks we're keeping [the resident] hostage. Had to reorient and reassured res multiple times as res thinks this LN also in danger. A eMAR-Medication Administration Note, dated 01/29/2025 at 12:07 PM, documented, This shift LN went into [Resident 162's] room [ROOM NUMBER] times to provide care. Each time resident was experiencing hallucinations. 'This is terrible. You couldn't have children with this.' Resident referring to hallucinations, dog, cat, snake. On 03/06/2025 at 9:01 AM, Staff B, Director of Nursing Services (DNS) and a Registered Nurse (RN), said Resident 162 was started on Seroquel for delirium while at the hospital and no longer needed the medication. Staff B said after reviewing Resident 162's medical record, the medical director was notified by e-mail of these distressing hallucinations on 01/20/2025 with physician's direction to continue to monitor. When asked to provide further notifications to the physician regarding Resident 162's ongoing hallucinations over the next 10 days, Staff B indicated she was unable to provide documentation of further physician notifications. Staff B said there should have been notes in the chart reflecting the nurses had reported Resident 162's ongoing hallucinations to the physician. Reference WAC 388-97-0320 (1)(b)(c) .
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0679 (Tag F0679)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** . Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident centered activities were provided that incorporat...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** . Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident centered activities were provided that incorporated the resident's preferences for 1 of 4 sampled resident (37) reviewed for activities. This failure placed residents at risk for a diminished quality of life. Findings included . Resident 37 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The Admission's Minimum Data Set assessment, dated 11/06/2024, showed the resident was alert and oriented and preferred to have books, newspapers and magazines. The Activity - admission Evaluation, dated 01/24/2024, documented activities will provide car magazines. The Activity - Quarterly Evaluation, dated 01/23/2025, documented activities has provided Resident 37 with car magazines. The February 2025 and March 2025 activity participation reports did not show Resident 37 had been offered and/or refused car magazine. On 03/04/2025 at 8:37 AM, Resident 37 said one of his activity preferences was cars or motorsports. Resident 37 said he would be interested in magazines or books related to motorsports if offered. On 03/06/2025 at 10:33 AM, Staff H, Activities Director, said if a resident had a preference for an activity they would do what they could to meet that resident's preferences. Staff H said they have supplied magazine, books, calendars and pictures. At 2:10 PM, Staff A, Administrator, said activities should develop a plan for the resident's preferences and provide services. Reference WAC 388-97-0940 (1)(2) .
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** <Bowel Interventions> A facility's document entitled, Bowel Protocol, undated, documented, If no BM (Bowel Movement) after...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** <Bowel Interventions> A facility's document entitled, Bowel Protocol, undated, documented, If no BM (Bowel Movement) after 4 days: 1. Administer Miralax (Laxative) 17gm (grams) in 6-8oz (ounces) of choice of beverage on day shift of day 4. Resident 24 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The Annual MDS assessment, dated 11/26/2024, showed the resident was alert and oriented. The BM task sheet documented Resident 24 had a BM on 02/18/2025 at 8:10 PM. Resident 24's next BM was on 02/23/2025 at 12:59 PM, over 112 hours, five days since the last BM. The February 2025 Medication Administration Record did not show documentation Resident 24 received any interventions between 02/18/2025 and 02/23/2025. On 02/07/2025 at 9:40 AM, Staff F, RCM and Licensed Vocational Nurse, said the bowel protocol should be initiated if the resident did not have a bowel movement after four days. After reviewing Resident 24's Bowel task, Staff F said the bowel protocol should have been initiated on 02/22/2025. At 9:29 AM, Staff B said the bowel protocol should be initiated on day 4 of no BM's. After reviewing Resident 24's Bowel task, Staff B said the bowel protocol should have been initiated on 02/22/2025. Reference WAC 388-97-1060 (1)(3)(c) Based on observations, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure physician orders were implemented for edema (the presence of excessive fluid in the body tissue) treatment for 1 of 1 sample resident (21) and failed to ensure bowel interventions were initiated for 1 of 5 sample residents (24) reviewed for quality of care related to following physician orders and bowel management. These failures placed residents at risk of complications related to untreated medical conditions and a diminished quality of life. Findings included . <Edema> Resident 21 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including chronic congestive heart failure. The 5-day MDS Assessment, dated 01/28/2025, indicated Resident 21 was moderately cognitively impaired. A Physician order, dated 01/31/2025 at 8:00 PM, indicated Resident 21's ted hose (a type of compression stocking used to treat swelling) were to be put on in the morning and to be taken off at bedtime for the treatment of edema. On 03/03/2025 at 3:06 PM, Resident 21 was observed sitting on the side of the bed and indicated her right leg was so swollen that fluid was starting to leak through the skin. There was visible moisture on the outer calf side of Resident 21's right leg. Resident 21 said her right pant leg was wet, and the pant leg did appear to be damp. Resident 21 was not wearing the ted hose. When asked if she had ever used compression stockings, Resident 21 stated, Oh, they talked about it, but that is all that ever happened. I have never been given any. On 03/04/2025 at 3:40 PM, Resident 21 was observed sitting on the side of the bed and not wearing the ted hose. Resident 21 said by the evening time she had to change her pants due to the moisture from the right leg dripping onto her clothing. On 03/05/2025 at 8:48 AM, Staff D, Nursing Assistant (NA), said for residents that wore ted hose, there would be a place on the task list to prompt the nursing assistants to put on the ted hose. Staff D said there would also be a prompt for removing them in the evening. Staff D said Resident 21 did not wear the ted hose. Staff D indicated they were unable to find a cue on the task list indicating the placement of ted hose for Resident 21. At 9:10 AM, Resident 21 was observed sitting on the side of the bed and not wearing the ted hose. Resident 21's legs were visibly swollen. At 9:10 AM, when asked to assess Resident 21's edema and locate the physician order for ted hose, Staff C, Licensed Practical Nurse and Resident Care Manager (RCM), Resident 21's legs were observed to be visibly swollen and shiny in appearance. Staff C asked Resident 21, Where are your compression stockings. Resident 21 stated, I have never had any. They talked about getting me some, but that's it. On 03/06/2025 at 9:01 AM, Staff B said the nurse would tell the nursing assistant verbally to put on ted hose for a resident. Staff B said the nurses should chart in the EHR if the resident refused the treatment. Staff B was unable to find documentation for refusals in Resident 21's EHR. At 3:10 PM, Staff E, NA, said she would find information about ted hose in the charting area of the EHR. Staff E said she worked during the evening time, and would be responsible to take the [NAME] hose off if a resident was wearing them. Staff E said she had never seen any of the residents have [NAME] hose, including Resident 21.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** . Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure oxygen therapy was accurately monitored for...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** . Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure oxygen therapy was accurately monitored for 1 of 4 sampled residents (21) reviewed for oxygen therapy. This failure placed residents at risk for a compromised respiratory status and a decreased quality of life. Findings included . The facility policy/procedure for oxygen administration, updated 02/2023, indicated the facility will document all appropriate information in the medical record including oxygen therapy, respiratory assessment findings, method of oxygen delivery, flow rate, resident's response, any adverse reactions or side effects. Resident 21 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including oxygen dependence related to chronic respiratory failure. The 5-day Minimum Data Set assessment, dated 01/28/2025, indicated Resident 21 was moderately cognitively impaired. The physician order for oxygen therapy, dated 01/23/2025, indicated oxygen was to be delivered at 2L/min (liters per minutes) when at rest, or 2-3L/min with activity. On 03/03/2025 at 1:34 PM, Resident 21 was observed sitting on the side of their bed with oxygen delivery. The oxygen concentrator dial indicated 3.5 L/min of oxygen was being administered. On 03/04/2025 at 3:49 PM, Resident 21 was observed in their bed receiving oxygen with the concentrator dial set to 3.5 L/min. On 03/5/2025 at 8:47 AM, Resident 21 was observed sitting on the side of their bed receiving oxygen with the concentrator dial set to 3.5 L/min. At 9:10 AM, Staff C, Resident Care Manager and Licensed Practical Nurse, said the oxygen order was determined by the nurse. The determination would be made to increase the oxygen setting if the resident was working with therapy and required more oxygen. Staff C indicated she was unable to find the amount of oxygen Resident 21 was receiving in the medical record. On 03/06/2025 at 9:01 AM, Staff B, Director of Nursing of Services and Registered Nurse, said the nurses monitor the oxygen on the Medication Administration Record. Staff B indicated she was unable to provide documentation showing Resident 21's oxygen use was being monitored as per the oxygen order. Reference WAC 388-97-1060 (3)(j)(vi) .
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** . Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from unnecessary psychotropic medicati...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** . Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from unnecessary psychotropic medication side effects by failing to provide side effect monitoring for 1 of 5 sampled residents (38) reviewed for unnecessary psychotropic medications. This failure placed residents at risk for medication side effects, unmet care needs, and a diminished quality of life. Findings included . Resident 38 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Dementia with Other Behavioral Disturbances. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment, dated 01/22/2025, documented Resident 38 was severely cognitively impaired. A physician's order, dated 11/08/2024, documented Resident 38 was prescribed Zyprexa (an antipsychotic medication). Resident 38's February 2025 and March 2025 Medication Administration Record (MAR) did not show documentation of medication side effect monitoring. On 03/06/2025 at 11:04 AM, after reviewing Resident 38's Zyprexa order and the February 2025 and March 2025 MAR, Staff B, Director of Nursing Services and Registered Nurse, indicated she was unable to locate documentation of antipsychotic medication side effects monitoring. Staff B said there should have been side effect monitoring documented in the MAR every shift. Reference WAC 388-97-1060 (3)(k)(i)(4) .
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Grade B+ (85/100). Above average facility, better than most options in Washington.
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Washington facilities.
  • • 45% turnover. Below Washington's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • 5 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
Bottom line: Generally positive indicators. Standard due diligence and a personal visit recommended.

About This Facility

What is Beacon Hill Rehabilitation's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns BEACON HILL REHABILITATION an overall rating of 5 out of 5 stars, which is considered much above average nationally. Within Washington, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.

How is Beacon Hill Rehabilitation Staffed?

CMS rates BEACON HILL REHABILITATION's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 45%, compared to the Washington average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Beacon Hill Rehabilitation?

State health inspectors documented 5 deficiencies at BEACON HILL REHABILITATION during 2025. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm and 4 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Beacon Hill Rehabilitation?

BEACON HILL REHABILITATION is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by THE ENSIGN GROUP, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 67 certified beds and approximately 55 residents (about 82% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in LONGVIEW, Washington.

How Does Beacon Hill Rehabilitation Compare to Other Washington Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Washington, BEACON HILL REHABILITATION's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (45%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (5 stars) is much above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Beacon Hill Rehabilitation?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?"

Is Beacon Hill Rehabilitation Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, BEACON HILL REHABILITATION has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 5-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Washington. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.

Do Nurses at Beacon Hill Rehabilitation Stick Around?

BEACON HILL REHABILITATION has a staff turnover rate of 45%, which is about average for Washington nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was Beacon Hill Rehabilitation Ever Fined?

BEACON HILL REHABILITATION has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.

Is Beacon Hill Rehabilitation on Any Federal Watch List?

BEACON HILL REHABILITATION is not on any federal watch list. The most significant is the Special Focus Facility (SFF) program, which identifies the bottom 1% of nursing homes nationally based on persistent, serious quality problems. Not being on this list means the facility has avoided the pattern of deficiencies that triggers enhanced federal oversight. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review the facility's inspection history directly.

BEACON HILL REHABILITATION

128 BEACON HILL DRIVE, LONGVIEW, WA 98632 | (360) 423-4060

B+
Trust Grade (85/100)
5.0
CMS Rating
5
Deficiencies

Strengths

  • 5-star quality

Concerns

  • Review findings

Ask about: Rn Coverage

nursinghomedata.org | Data: CMS November 2025