YAKIMA VALLEY SCHOOL
Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.
Yakima Valley School has a Trust Grade of D, indicating below-average quality with some significant concerns. It ranks #89 out of 190 facilities in Washington, placing it in the top half, and #6 out of 11 in Yakima County, meaning only five local options are better. The facility is improving, having reduced its issues from 12 in 2024 to 9 in 2025. Staffing is a strong point, with a 5/5 star rating and a turnover rate of 41%, which is below the state average, suggesting that staff are committed to the residents. While there have been no fines, there is concerning RN coverage, as it has less RN presence than 86% of facilities in the state. However, there are serious weaknesses to consider. A critical incident was reported where seven staff members failed to promptly report allegations of abuse, which placed residents at risk for further harm. There was also a serious finding involving a resident who was kicked in the face, leading to psychosocial harm and changes in behavior. Families should weigh these strengths and weaknesses carefully when considering this facility for their loved ones.
- Trust Score
- D
- In Washington
- #89/190
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 41% 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 ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 129 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than 97% of Washington nursing homes. RNs are the most trained staff who catch health problems before they become serious.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 22 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
-
4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (41%)
7 points below Washington average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Near Washington avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
The Ugly 22 deficiencies on record
Aug 2025
1 deficiency
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
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 supervision for 1 of 4 residents (Resident 1) reviewed for de...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2025
8 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide care and services in a dignified manner when they served other residents their meals before everyone else seated in th...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0628
(Tag F0628)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to issue a written notice of bed hold (holding or reserving a resident's bed while the resident was absent from the facility) and provide a wr...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0645
(Tag F0645)
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 validate the accuracy of a resident's Preadmission Screening and Re...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0655
(Tag F0655)
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 develop a base line care plan (BCP), for 3 of 3 residents (Resident'...
Read full inspector narrative →
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
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to follow physician's orders to obtain specialized services for 1 of 2 residents (Resident 15) reviewed for pain. This failed pra...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0887
(Tag F0887)
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 and/or their representative were offered/educated ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0604
(Tag F0604)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that physical restraints (any manual method, physical or mechanical device, equipment or material, attached or adjacent to the resi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0725
(Tag F0725)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure there were optimal nursing staff in order to provide appropriate supervision and individualized care needed based on t...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2024
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
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 allegations of potential abuse were reported to the administ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2024
3 deficiencies
1 IJ (1 affecting multiple)
CRITICAL
(K)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure 7 of 11 staff (Staff M, O, Q, D, F, J, and H) immediately (n...
Read full inspector narrative →
SERIOUS
(G)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
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 protect a resident's right to be free from physical abuse for 2 of 2...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Abuse Prevention Policies
(Tag F0607)
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 have written policies and procedures to include the time frames for...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2024
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0583
(Tag F0583)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure personal privacy was protected for 4 of 4 resi...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2024
7 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0557
(Tag F0557)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide care in a manner that maintained a resident's ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0568
(Tag F0568)
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 quarterly personal fund statements were provided to resident...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0645
(Tag F0645)
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 review and validate the Preadmission Screening and Resident Reviews ...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 individualized targeted behaviors were being monitored and o...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain infection control practices for 1 of 1 reside...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure medications were properly stored and labeled, ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure Cottage refrigerators and cupboards were free of expired foods and refrigerator temperatures were logged appropriately...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2023
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0921)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to provide a safe and comfortable environment for 4 of 8 cottages (cottages 402, 403, 404 and 406) which included recliners, a dining chair and ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Washington facilities.
- • 41% turnover. Below Washington's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s), 2 harm violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 22 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • Grade D (48/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Yakima Valley School's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns YAKIMA VALLEY SCHOOL an overall rating of 4 out of 5 stars, which is considered 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 Yakima Valley School Staffed?
CMS rates YAKIMA VALLEY SCHOOL's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 41%, compared to the Washington average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Yakima Valley School?
State health inspectors documented 22 deficiencies at YAKIMA VALLEY SCHOOL during 2023 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 2 that caused actual resident harm, and 19 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.
Who Owns and Operates Yakima Valley School?
YAKIMA VALLEY SCHOOL is owned by a government entity. Government-operated facilities are typically run by state, county, or municipal agencies. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 112 certified beds and approximately 47 residents (about 42% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in SELAH, Washington.
How Does Yakima Valley School Compare to Other Washington Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Washington, YAKIMA VALLEY SCHOOL's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (41%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Yakima Valley School?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations.
Is Yakima Valley School Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, YAKIMA VALLEY SCHOOL has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 4-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Washington. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.
Do Nurses at Yakima Valley School Stick Around?
YAKIMA VALLEY SCHOOL has a staff turnover rate of 41%, 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 Yakima Valley School Ever Fined?
YAKIMA VALLEY SCHOOL 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 Yakima Valley School on Any Federal Watch List?
YAKIMA VALLEY SCHOOL 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.