YAKIMA VALLEY SCHOOL

609 SPEYERS ROAD, SELAH, WA 98942 (509) 698-1300
Government - State 112 Beds Independent Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
48/100
#89 of 190 in WA
Last Inspection: June 2025

Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.

Overview

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
48/100
In Washington
#89/190
Top 46%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
12 → 9 violations
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.
★★★★☆
4.0
Overall Rating
★★★★★
5.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★★★☆☆
3.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 12 issues
2025: 9 issues

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

Staff Turnover: 41%

Near Washington avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

The Ugly 22 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening 2 actual harm
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 →
**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 dental sedation. The failure to follow post sedation safety protocol resulted in Resident 1 to have an unwitnessed fall that caused a 10-centimeter (cm) laceration mid forehead that required 11 staples at the hospital. Findings included.Record review of facility's policy titled, Level of Supervision (LOS) 1.08, dated 10/2024, showed that a LOS would be assigned to provide an appropriate degree of supervision for each resident. Direct care staff would check the LOS assigned in the resident's record daily. Definition for LOS 3 was supervision must be positioned in a manner to protect the resident from or deter danger. Enhanced staffing [was] required.Record review of facility's policy titled, Nursing Standard Operating Procedure IV.A.17 Sedation, dated 02/2024, showed that after receiving sedation, the Attendant Counselor (AC, a nursing assistant) would maintain close observation of the resident (LOS 3), maintain safety precautions as directed by the nurse and the resident would not be allowed to lay down in bed until released by the nurse.Resident 1Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] for a short-term respite stay and discharged back home on [DATE].Review of the resident's 07/31/2025 comprehensive assessment showed Resident 1 had severe intellectual disabilities (a condition that involves limitations on intelligence, learning and everyday abilities necessary to live independently), anxiety disorder (the mind and body's reaction to stressful, dangerous, or unfamiliar situations) and was blind. The resident was dependent on staff for their activities of daily living (dressing, toileting and bathing); however, they were independent with walking around in the cottage.Review of the 07/24/2025 care plan showed the resident would receive sedation prior to going to dental and upon return to the cottage the resident would be monitored by staff for drowsiness, eating problems and discomfort.Review of the 07/31/2025 facility investigation showed Resident 1 received Lorazepam (a medication that has sedative and antianxiety effects) three milligrams (mg) on 07/29/2025 at 8:30 AM for a dental appointment. Later that day, Resident 1 had an unwitnessed fall in the cottage at 1:15 PM that caused a laceration to their forehead and required medical care at the hospital.Record review of the 07/29/2025 Sedation Protocol Checklist showed Resident 1 was to remain in the wheelchair with a positioning belt and stay in the line of sight of staff until released by the nurse. The resident's vital signs were attempted prior to the sedation and every 30 minutes after until the resident returned to their baseline. Resident 1 would not allow their pulse or blood pressure to be measured; however, their level of consciousness and respiratory rate was monitored by the unit nurse and were within stable parameters. Resident 1 was drowsy and had not been released by the nurse prior to their injury.Review of statements included in the 07/31/2025 facility investigation showed that Staff D, AC, was working with Resident 1 just prior to the incident on 07/29/2025. Staff D transferred Resident 1 to their bed due to falling asleep in their wheelchair around 1:00 PM. Staff D watched Resident 1 from the bedroom door for about 10 minutes until Resident 1 appeared asleep. Staff D then went to the front of the cottage to wash their hands and chart. When done washing their hands, they heard a noise in the back of the cottage and found Resident 1 bleeding from their forehead, while standing in the hallway.Review of statements included in the 07/31/2025 facility investigation showed that Staff C, Licensed Practical Nurse, was the nurse on duty when Resident 1 was found with a laceration on their forehead. They reported they had not released Resident 1 from sedation observation and were not notified prior to the resident's transfer to bed.Review of the 07/31/2025 facility investigation conclusion showed Staff D failed to follow the sedation protocols to maintain line of sight of the resident.Review of a 07/29/2025 at 2:49 PM progress note showed Staff C was called to attend Resident 1 at 1:14 PM after staff heard a loud thud in the back hall. Resident 1 was standing near their bedroom door with a bleeding laceration to their forehead. The laceration was measured 10 cm long by 2 cm wide and 0.5 cm deep. Pressure was applied and the resident was transported by ambulance to the hospital.During a telephone interview on 08/18/2025 at 12:45 PM, Resident 1's Representative (RR) stated the facility reached them by phone by the time Resident 1 was in transport to the hospital. The staff stated they thought Resident 1 fell in the back hall and hit their head on a hard surface. The RR stated, the wound was horrific and was very upset this happened. The RR stated after returning home, they took Resident 1 to the hospital on [DATE] to have the staples removed. The RR stated the hospital staff instructed them to clean the wound two to three times a day and it would take a while to heal. The RR stated Resident 1 was very resistant to having the wound cleaned and it had become a fight.During an interview on 08/18/2025 at 1:20 PM, Staff D stated they knew Resident 1 was LOS 3 and thought they could leave the resident's bedside after they fell asleep. Staff D stated they did not know that LOS 3 with sedation required continuous line of sight until the nurse released the resident from monitoring. Staff D stated they should not have left Resident 1 alone in their room.During an interview on 08/20/2025 at 10:15 AM, Staff A, Superintendent/NH Administrator, stated their investigation showed Staff C was new to day shift and had not been trained on the sedation protocol. We should have done a better job to protect [Resident 1].Reference: WAC 388-97-1060 (3)(g)This is a repeat citation from the Statement of Deficiencies dated 05/28/2025.
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 →
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 the dining area for 3 of 4 residents (Residents 2, 6, and 23) reviewed for dignity. This failure placed residents at risk for lack of inclusion and decreased dignity. Findings included . <Resident 2> Review of the resident's medical record showed they admitted with diagnoses to include Intellectual Disabilities (ID, limitations in cognitive functioning and skills, including conceptual, social, and practical skills) and mixed receptive-expressive language disorder (a communication disorder that affects both understanding and producing/expressing language). The 05/13/2025 comprehensive assessment showed Resident 2's cognition was severely impaired and was dependent on staff for eating their meals. <Resident 6> Review of the resident's medical records showed they admitted with diagnoses to include ID and epilepsy (a brain condition that causes recurring seizures, which are abnormal electrical brain activities). The 05/26/2025 comprehensive assessment showed Resident 6's cognition was severely impaired and was dependent upon staff for eating their meals. <Resident 23> Review of the resident's medical records showed they admitted to the facility with diagnoses to include ID and epilepsy. The 04/09/2025 comprehensive assessment showed Resident 23's cognition was severely impaired and was dependent upon staff for eating their meals. During an observation on 06/02/2025 at 11:56 AM, showed Resident 6 sitting in their wheelchair (w/c), looking downwards to their right side. Resident 6's meal had been served onto a plate and was waiting for staff to assist them with eating. Resident 23 was sitting in the recliner closest to the front door waiting for their meal. Observations showed all other residents had been served their meals or were being assisted with their meals while these two residents waited for staff to assist them. NAs began to assist Residents 6 and 23 at 11:59 AM. There were two other residents that required staff assistance with their meals that had already been assisted. A concurrent observation and interview on 06/03/2025 at 5:09 PM, showed Residents 2, 6, and 23 had not been served their dinner. The living room area and the dining area are both in a combined space. At one table there was Staff H, Registered Nurse, assisting another resident with their meal and on a side table, there was a resident eating unassisted, and only required cueing. Resident 2 was sitting at a different table with their eyes closed, mouth opened, and their dinner plate was sitting in front of them, but staff clarified they had already eaten even though their food had not looked like it had been touched. Resident 6 was sitting in the dining room area, in between the tables, with a side table beside their w/c, waiting to be assisted to eat, and Resident 23 was walking back and forth from their room to the dining room. Staff H stated they were helping staff out because they were short-handed [not enough staff] today. Staff I, Nursing Assistant (NA), stated when they were short staffed, the residents were the ones who suffer, because look at [Resident 6], they haven't eaten yet. Staff I further confirmed that Resident 23 had not been assisted to eat either (exited the building at 5:23 PM and neither resident 6 nor 23 had been served or assisted with their meal. 14 minutes after the other residents had been observed being assisted). A concurrent observation and interview on 06/04/2025 at 11:38 AM, showed Staff R, NA, sitting at one table in the dining area assisting a resident with their meal. Resident 2 was sitting at the 2nd table with no food and directly across the table from Resident 2 was another resident who had been served their meal and was eating. Observations showed Resident 6 sitting in between the two tables in the dining room area, in their w/c, waiting for their meal and assistance, and Resident 23 stood by the two tables, walking back and forth from table to table. Additionally, Resident 2 blankly stared at the resident eating across from them, and at times would wrinkle their forehead and scowl (an angry or bad-tempered expression). Staff R stated they were the only NA at the time and the other NA had been on their lunch break. Observations at 11:55 AM, showed Staff K, NA, had returned from their lunch break and assisted Resident 6 with their meal. Resident 2 and Resident 23 were waiting for their meal and staff assistance. Resident 2 continued watching the resident across from them eating. An observation at 12:16 PM, showed Resident 2 received their lunch with staff assistance (38 minutes after the first resident was being observed being assisted). Observations at 12:36 PM (58 minutes after all other residents) showed Resident 23 received their lunch with staff assistance. Staff K stated they had four residents out of the seven they were assigned that required staff assistance with their meals and they just had to prioritize who to assist first. During an interview on 06/06/2025 at 1:38 PM, Staff B, Director of Nursing Services, stated they felt they had enough staff for the level of supervision the residents required, not the amount of assistance they needed. Staff B stated they would have expected the NAs to call for additional assistance if they did not have enough staff to assist with feeding all the assisted residents at the same time.
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 →
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 written notice to the resident and/or their representative of a hospital transfer for 1 of 2 residents (Residents 15) reviewed for hospitalization. This failure placed the residents at risk for lack of knowledge regarding their right to hold their bed and any monetary charges associated with the bed hold and lack of discharge needs while in the hospital. Findings included . <Resident 15> Review of the resident ' s medical record showed they admitted to the facility with diagnoses to include Intellectual Disabilities (ID, limitations in cognitive functioning and skills, including conceptual, social, and practical skills) and epilepsy (a brain condition that causes recurring seizures, which are abnormal electrical brain activities). The 03/13/2025 comprehensive assessment showed Resident 15's cognition was severely impaired and had readmitted to the facility on after a hospital stay. Review of Resident 15's progress notes dated 02/12/2025 showed the resident experienced loose stools and an elevated temperature for three days. The provider was notified, and orders were given to send Resident 15 to the hospital. A follow-up progress notes on the same day showed the resident had sepsis (a serious condition in which the body responds improperly to an infection, causing organ damage and sometimes death) and was admitted to the hospital. Further review of the medical record showed Resident 15, nor their Resident Representative (RR) were offered a bed hold or were they given a notification of a hospital transfer. During an interview on 06/06/2025 at 3:04 PM, Staff N, Social Services Specialist, stated they normally received a notification by electronic mail (email) if a resident had been admitted to the hospital. Staff N stated they had not received that email or I missed it somehow and the bed hold, and transfer notification had not been done. During an interview on 06/06/2025 at 3:24 PM, Staff A, Administrator, stated they would have expected the bed hold and the notification of transfer to be completed per their policy. Staff A stated the process was to offer the bed hold and they were aware that got missed.
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 →
**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 Resident Reviews ([PASARR], an assessment to ensure individuals with serious mental illness [SMI] or intellectual/developmental disabilities [ID/DD] are not inappropriately placed in nursing homes for long term care) as required for 1 of 5 residents (Resident 35) reviewed for PASARR. This failure placed the residents at risk for not receiving the care and services appropriate to their needs. Findings included . <Resident 35> Review of Resident 35's medical record showed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including a bone infection of the lower spine, depression and anxiety. The comprehensive assessment, dated 05/05/2025, showed the resident was cognitively intact, could make their needs known and had active diagnoses of an anxiety disorder and depression. Review of Resident 35's PASARR, dated 11/01/2024, showed under section I, SMI/ID, had been marked for depression but was not marked for anxiety. During an interview on 06/06/2025 at 1:57 PM, Staff F, Social Service Director, stated they, along with the Resident Care Coordinators, reviewed resident PASARR's for accuracy before submitting a referral for positive Level 1 PASARR's. Staff F stated they were not aware that Resident 35 had a diagnosis of anxiety, and the resident PASARR was not accurate and needed to be corrected and resubmitted. During an interview on 06/06/2025 at 4:16 PM, Staff A, Administrator, stated the facility staff know the procedure for resident PASARR's and checking to make sure resident SMI diagnoses were accurate was a part of that. Staff A stated the correct process was no followed for Resident 35's PASARR.
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 →
**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's 43, 44 and 35) reviewed for base line care planning. The facility failed to provide the residents or their representatives with a written summary of the required information upon completion of the comprehensive care plan. The missing information included the resident's initial goals, physician's orders and current diet orders. This failure placed the residents at risk for adverse events and unmet care needs. Findings included . <Resident 43> Review of the resident's record showed they were admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included autism (a mental health condition that affects an individual's ability to communicate and react to the environment), and intellectual disability (limitations in cognitive functioning). The comprehensive assessment dated [DATE] showed Resident 43 had severe cognitive impairment and required two staff to support their activities of daily living (ADL's, basic tasks needed for self-care). Review of Resident 43's CP dated 01/23/2025 showed the required components were not included such as initial goals, physician or dietary orders. Additionally there was no documentation that a written copy had been given to the resident's representative once it had been completed. During an interview on 06/06/2025 at 2:40 PM, Staff E, Resident Care Coordinator (RCC) stated they did not include initial goals, physician orders or current diet orders on the CP. Staff E stated they were unaware of the required components to be included on the CP. <Resident 44> Review of the resident's medical record showed they were admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included autism, intellectual disability and epilepsy (a disorder in which nerve cell activity in the brain is disturbed causing seizures). Review of the comprehensive assessment dated [DATE] showed the resident had severely impaired cognition and required supervision and minimal assistance from staff for ADL's. Record review of Resident 44's CP dated 03/06/2025 showed no initial goals, physician orders or dietary orders listed. <Resident 35> Review of the resident's medical record showed the resident admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including cerebral palsy (a congenital (prior to birth) disorder of movement and muscle tone), osteomyelitis (inflammation of bone caused by infection) in the sacrum (a bone located at the base of the spine) and diabetes (too much sugar in the blood). Review of the comprehensive assessment dated [DATE] showed the resident was cognitively intact and required substantial to total assistance from staff for ADL's and mobility. Record review of Resident 35's CP dated 10/23/2024 showed no initial goals, physician or dietary orders identified. Additional review showed there was no documentation that the CP had been given to the resident after it had been completed. During an interview on 06/06/2025 at 11:44 AM, Staff D, RCC stated they had been responsible to develop the CP's for Resident's 43 and 35. Staff D stated the CP's did not include the required components for initial goals, physician or dietary orders. During an interview on 06/06/2025 at 1:12 PM, Staff B, Director of Nursing Services, stated they had not been aware of the requirement to develop a CP which included the resident's initial goals, physician and dietary orders. Staff B stated, We are working on a new process to develop a CP with the identified components as we did not have one before.
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 →
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 practice placed residents at risk of not receiving needed specialized care and services and a decline in health and/or mobility. Findings included . <Resident 15> Review of the resident's medical records showed they admitted with diagnoses of Intellectual Disabilities (limitations in cognitive functioning and skills, including conceptual, social, and practical skills) and autism (when a person has trouble communicating and understanding what people think and feel). Review of the 03/13/2025 comprehensive assessment showed Resident 15's cognition was severely impaired and was independent for transfers and ambulation. During an observation and concurrent interview on 06/02/2025 at 3:00 PM, Resident 15 was sitting in a chair in the dining room, stood up, and walked towards the back patio door. When Resident 15 walked, they had a slight limp to their left leg. Resident 15 was wearing shorts, and the left knee showed some mild swelling compared to the visualization of the bones from the right knee to the left knee. Staff P, Nursing Assistant, stated Resident 15 had limped on their left leg for the past few months, off and on. Staff P stated they went to have imaging but for some reason that could not be completed. Staff P stated Resident 15 had been put on a pain medication for their left leg. Review of Resident 15's care plan dated 06/14/2024 through 09/13/2024, showed no care plan to reflect Resident 15's left leg limping or increased pain. Review of the Orthopedic (Ortho, a specialist who diagnoses and treats conditions affecting the bones, muscles, and joints) specialist's note, dated 03/06/2025, showed Resident 15 was being seen for left knee pain and the symptoms were gradually worsening. The plan was to obtain further imaging for concerns that Resident 15 experienced internal derangement (internal damage to the knee caused due to trauma) to their left knee. The note showed Resident 15 would require intravenous (IV, medication provided into the vein) sedation due to the resident's diagnoses. Further, Resident 15 was to have rest and activity modification to prevent increased stress to the knee, ice alternating with heat, and possible topical pain-relieving creams and ointments. Review of a follow-up note, dated 03/06/2025, sent to the facility from the Ortho showed; Ordering MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging, a medical imaging technique that uses a powerful magnet, radiation waves, and a computer to create detailed images of the inside of the body) with IV sedation of the left knee and to follow-up after the imaging was completed. Review of a follow-up note, dated 04/04/2025 sent to the local hospital, showed IV is not done at our facility and the provider was called and asked to prescribe oral sedation. The note had no other documentation or who signed or sent the note. Review of Resident 15 progress notes, showed: • 03/17/2025 - the RR reached out to inquire about an imaging appointment and was told one had not been made yet and would reach out to the Ortho. • 04/04/2025 - Resident 15 went to the local hospital for scheduled imaging of their left knee. Staff that assisted Resident 15 was told they did not perform imaging under general anesthesia (a medical treatment that induces a sleep-like state by administering medications through an IV) so the imaging was not completed. • 04/04/2025 - the RR called the facility to see what the next steps were and informed the facility they wanted the provider, or the Medical Director consulted with for the next steps and requested the possibility of finding another facility for the imaging. The note showed they followed up with the provider and they were told to locate another facility that would perform the imaging. • 04/08/2025, 04/27/2025, 05/01/2025, 05/05/22025, and 5/15/2025 - Resident 15 continued with limping to their left leg. Review of Resident 15's 06/2025 physician orders showed an order initiated on 04/29/2025 for ibuprofen (a brand of medication used for pain and swelling) 600 milligrams (a unit of measure) twice daily for diagnosis of Osteoarthritis (breakdown of cartilage in the joints, leading to pain, stiffness, and limited movement) of knee (which knee is not specified). Review of a 03/06/2025 Physician's note, showed Resident 15 was followed up by the Ortho and had orders for imaging for further evaluation. Another note dated 05/05/2025, showed Resident 15 had on-going left knee pain with limping and had a referral to an Ortho for imaging. The note showed blood tests were ordered via verbal order due to the Resident Representative's (RR) concern for Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA, a chronic inflammatory disorder that can affect more than just your joints) and for Resident 15 to continue with the use of the ibuprofen. Review of Resident 15's blood test results showed no blood tests had been obtained to rule out RA as the RR had requested and the provider had verbally ordered on 05/05/2025. During an interview on 06/06/2025 at 8:21 AM, Staff D, Resident Care Coordinator (RCC), stated the facility waited for the Ortho to make Resident 15 an appointment for the imaging (63 days later). Staff D stated their attempts to reach the Ortho had not been successful and had left requests for a return call. Staff D stated the RA blood tests were just ordered (32 days after verbal order) and were working on that. Staff D stated they had not reached out to Resident 15's primary provider because Resident 15 had been referred to a specialist and once, they were referred out, our hands don't do anything from that point, so we don't step on anyone's toes. Staff D stated they had reached out to the RR to request them to call the Ortho to see what the plan was. Staff D stated they thought they updated Resident 15's care plan but at times when they update it, stuff just disappears or doesn't go anywhere. Staff D stated they did not follow up with Ortho's plan for ice and heat and activity modifications because they must have overlooked those directions. A concurrent observation and interview on 06/06/2025 at 12:46 PM, Staff Q, Recreation Nursing Assistant, stated they attended the imaging appointment with Resident 15 for their left knee. Staff Q stated when they arrived, they were told by the local hospital that when the appointment was made, they informed the caller they did not do imaging under general anesthesia, so refused to see them. During this interview, Staff Q was walking with Resident 15 outside in the parking lot, Staff Q let go of Resident 15's hand to allow them to walk on their own. Resident 15 walked without a limp, but when taking a step with their left leg, they would swing the left leg slightly outwards, as if not to bend it all of the way. Staff Q stated they had noticed that as well. Resident 15's left knee showed mild swelling compared to the right knee. During an interview on 06/06/2025 at 1:38 PM, Staff B, Director of Nursing Services, stated they would have expected Staff D to have followed up with Resident 15's primary provider for additional imaging orders or at least a plan of action to ensure the imaging ordered had been completed. Staff B stated the RCC's should continue to do all they can, even when a resident was referred out to another provider, to ensure they get done what they need. Staff B stated they did not know why the blood work ordered had not been completed but it should have been. Staff B stated notes from providers should be read when a resident returned from an appointment and additional interventions put into place if that is what was ordered. Staff B stated that did not happen with Resident 15. Additionally, Staff B stated Staff D should not have reached out to Resident 15's RR for assistance in obtaining the imaging ordered.
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 →
**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 on the COVID-19 (an infectious disease causing respiratory illness with symptoms including cough, fever, new or worsening malaise, headache, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, loss of taste or smell, and in severe cases, difficulty breathing that could result in severe impairment or death) immunization (the action of taking a vaccine for a particular infectious disease) for 1 of 5 sampled residents (Residents 38) reviewed for immunization status. This failure placed the resident at risk of making an uninformed decision and contracting the COVID-19 virus. Findings included . Review of the facility's policy titled, COVID-19 Response, revised January 2025, showed the facility would offer residents or their representative the COVID-19 vaccine, educate on the risk/benefits of the immunization and obtain consent. <Resident 38> Review of the resident's medical record showed they were admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnosis including Autism (a developmental disorder characterized by differences in social interactions/communication and restricted or repetitive patterns of behavior/interests), anxiety and intellectual disabilities. The comprehensive assessment dated [DATE] showed the resident had a severely impaired cognition. Review of Resident 26's immunization records for years 2024 and 2025 showed no documentation of a COVID-19 immunization assessment, education or a signed consent/declination form completed for the resident. During an interview on 06/06/2025 at 4:00 PM, Staff C, Registered Nurse/Infection Preventionist, stated they did not have documentation of Resident 38's representative (RR) consent or education on the benefits/potential side effects of the COVID-19 immunization. Staff C stated the procedure was to send out letters to the facility RR about immunization information and had not received a response back from Resident 38's RR. Staff Q stated when a RR did not respond to the letter, that facility staff would contact the RR to offer and educated on the COVID-19 immunization. Staff Q stated that the correct process was not followed and Resident 38's RR was not contacted about the COVID-19 immunization. During an interview on 06/06/2025 at 4:16 PM, Staff A, Administrator, stated the correct process for offering/educating on the risk versus benefits and potential side effects of the COVID-19 was not followed for Resident 38.
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 →
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 residents body, that cannot be removed by the resident and restricts the resident's freedom of movement) were implemented in a safe manner, had the required resident specific medical symptoms (which warranted the use of physical restraints) identified, medical provider orders for the use of the specific type of physical restraint were obtained, nor that least restrictive measures were utilized to treat a resident's medical symptoms for 3 of 3 residents (Residents 20, 3 and 15), reviewed for physical restraints. This failure placed residents at an increased risk for injury, a loss of their freedom of movement and adverse mental health effects regarding their well-being, independence and self-direction. Findings included . Review of the facility's policy titled, Use of Restrictive Procedures, revised December 2024, showed that a medical professional would place an order for medically necessary mechanical restrictions/restraints to .protect a client's physical health and treat a medical condition . The policy showed that if medically necessary treatments were planned by an interdisciplinary team (IDT, a collaborative group of healthcare staff from various fields of work within a facility) for a resident to have restrictions/restraints the protocol and procedure would be on the Restraint Orders and Monitoring form. The policy showed that when physical restraints were used to complete a medical or dental procedure a medical professional would document medical necessity (refers to a determination that a treatment or procedure is essential to treat a diagnosed medical condition) and include the purpose of the restraint, and that lesser restrictive interventions (the choosing of interventions that limits a residents freedom, independence, or rights as little as possible) were tried but ineffective. Additionally, the policy showed the medical professional must document in the resident's medical record using the restraint orders and monitoring form, which included the type of physical restraint, the resident's response to the physical restraint and the emotional and behavioral state of the resident upon release of the restraint. Review of the facility's protocol form titled, Restraint Orders and Monitoring, revised March 2022, showed the restraint orders section needed to be fill out completely or to look at the physician's order and that the form would be used for all restraint checks and monitoring. The form has sections for the type of restraint order, type of restraint, description of restraints used, physicians order, restraint alternatives tried, and the reason for the resident's restraint. Review of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument (a tool used to facilitate accurate and effective resident assessment practices), Section P, Restraints and Alarms, dated 10/01/2024, showed, Any manual method or physical or mechanical device, material, or equipment that meets the definition of a physical restraint must have: physician documentation of a medical symptom that supports the use of the restraint, a physician's order for the type of restraint and parameter of use, and a care plan and a process in place for systematic and gradual restraint reduction (and/or elimination, if possible), as appropriate. Additionally, identification of medical symptoms could assist the facility in determining what less restrictive measure to utilize and that facility's should perform all due diligence (extensive evaluation before implementation) in documenting this process to ensure that they had exhausted alternative treatments and less restrictive measures before a physical restraint was employed to treat a resident's medical symptom. <Resident 20> Review of the resident's medical records showed they were admitted to the facility intellectual disabilities (ID, limitations in cognitive functioning and skills, including conceptual, social, and practical skills), hearing loss, anxiety and expressive language disorder (a communication challenge that affects a person's ability to express thoughts, ideas or feelings clearly and effectively). The 04/18/2025 comprehensive assessment showed the resident had severely impaired cognition and no physical restraints were documented being used. The 10/18/2024 comprehensive assessment showed that physical restraints were documented as used less than daily. Review of Resident 20's care plan, reviewed 06/06/2025 showed the resident would receive safe quality oral health care. The care plan showed, (Resident 20) is very resistant to oral health care. Restraint and/or oral sedation (the process of making a resident more relaxed through administration of medication) needed for safety during dental treatment. Review of Resident 20's dental progress notes showed: • on 07/16/2024, Resident 20 was .adequately sedated and tolerated the procedure well. (Resident 20) was very cooperative. (Resident 20) was treated in the dental chair; hand restraints and leg wrap (applied 10:34 AM, removed 10:54 AM) . No documentation was noted on Resident 20's specific medical symptoms identified, which warranted the use of the physical restraints, the medical providers orders for implementation of the physical restraint, nor that least restrictive measures were utilized for Resident 20 prior to implementation of physical hand/leg restraints. • on 10/17/2024 Resident 20 was .adequately sedated and tolerated the procedure well. (Resident 20) was very cooperative. (Resident 20) was treated in the dental chair; hand restraints and leg wrap (applied 09:44 AM, removed 10:13 AM) . Again, no documentation was noted on the specific medical symptoms identified for the use of physical hand/leg restraints, the provider orders for implementation of the physical hand/leg restraints, nor that lesser restrictive intervention were attempted before using the hand and leg restraints. Review of Resident 20's provider orders for July 2024 and October 2024, showed no documentation of orders for specific medical symptoms that warranted the use of physical restraints had been completed. Review of the facility's restraint orders and monitoring form showed no documentation of the form being completed for Resident 20's dental appointments/physical restraint implementation. <Resident 3> Review of the resident's medical records showed they were admitted to the facility with diagnoses including ID, cerebral palsy (a neurological disorder that permanently affects body movement and muscle coordination) and expressive language disorder. The 05/10/2025 comprehensive assessment showed the resident had a severely impaired cognition and physical restraints were documented as used less than daily. Review of Resident 3's care plan, reviewed 06/04/2025 showed the resident would receive safe quality oral health care. The care plan showed that Resident 3 was very resistant to oral health care and that restraints/oral sedation may be needed for their safety during dental treatments. Review of Resident 3's dental progress notes showed that on 05/08/2025 at 10:27 AM, the resident was treated in their wheelchair .right hand restraint applied 9:47 AM/removed 10:04 AM . No documentation was noted with the specific medical symptoms identified for the use of the physical hand restraint, the provider orders for implementation of the physical hand restraint, nor that lesser restrictive intervention were attempted before implementing the hand restraint. Review of Resident 3's provider orders for May 2025, showed no documentation of orders for specific medical symptoms that warranted the use of physical restraints had been completed. Review of the facility's restraint orders and monitoring form showed no documentation of the form being completed for Resident 3's dental appointments/physical restraint implementation.<Resident 15> Review of the resident's medical record showed they were admitted to the facility with diagnoses including ID and epilepsy (a brain condition that causes recurring seizures, which are abnormal electrical brain activities). The 03/13/2025 comprehensive assessment showed Resident 15's cognition was severely impaired and received anxiety (excessive, persistent, and uncontrollable worry and fear about everyday situations) medications. Review of Resident 15's dental progress notes showed: • on 01/29/2025, Resident 15 was seen for a dental appointment. Resident 15 was given anxiety medications for sedation prior to the appointment. Upon arriving to the dental department, Resident 15 was awake and alert. Resident 15 was transferred from their wheelchair to the dental chair and placed into protective stabilization a body wrap (a temporary restraining device that immobilizes a subject's body and restricts their ability to kick or do harm) restraint. The note showed Resident 15 was resistive at times but cooperative enough to treat. • on 02/06/2025, Resident 15 was seen for a dental appointment and provided the same medications and body wrap restraint as on 01/29/2025. Additionally, physical assistance was provided to stabilize the head. Resident 15 was very cooperative and tolerated the procedure well. • on 02/19/2025, Resident 15 was seen for dental appointments and provided the same medications and wrap as on 01/29/2025. Resident 15 was awake and alert throughout the dental visit. • on 03/19/2025, Resident 15 was seen for dental appointments and provided the same medications and wrap as on 01/29/2025. Resident was awake and alert through the dental visit. • on 04/09/2025 Resident 15 was seen for dental appointments and provided the same medications and wrap as on 01/29/2025. Resident was awake and alert through the dental visit. • on 05/15/2025 Resident 15 was seen for a dental appointment and provided the same medications and restraints as on 02/06/2025. Resident 15 was very cooperative and tolerated the procedure well. The notes showed no documentation that Resident 15 experienced any behaviors prior to being placed into the body wrap restraint or that they attempted to use a least restrictive option. The notes showed Resident 15 was taken from their cottage after being provided medication sedation and transferred from their wheelchair directly into the dental chair into a body wrap restraint. During an interview on 06/05/2025 at 3:55 PM, Staff B, Director of Nursing Services, stated the facility's process with physical restraints was to get a provider order for the restraint and how the restraint would be applied, obtain consents from the resident representative, complete assessments/care planning all before a restraint would be utilized for the resident. Staff B stated that they were not aware of physical restraints currently being needed for facility residents and that they would have received a notification from the nursing staff if they needed to apply a physical restraint. When asked about physical restraints during dental appointment, Staff B stated that dental staff were responsible for obtaining restraint consents, assessments and documentation of least restrictive measures being utilized. During an interview on 06/06/2025 at 9:47 AM, Staff B stated they were aware of facility residents having physical restraints applied during dental procedures. Staff B stated that it was not the facility's process to obtain provider orders for the implementation of physical restraints on residents during dental procedures. Staff B stated the restraint orders and monitoring form should be documented and would show a resident's orders, assessments, monitoring, and the lesser restrictive measures used before implementing physical restraints. Staff B stated they did not see that the facility's dental staff was completing the form when restraints were implemented during resident dental procedures. During an interview on 06/06/2025 at 10:30 AM, Staff B and Staff G, Dental Hygienist, stated they were familiar with the facility's resident population with intellectual disabilities, and dental procedures conducted. Staff G stated that during resident dental procedures, sedation/physical restraints were applied when a resident was starting to pull at the dentist's arm or when a resident would move their arms up to their mouth. Staff G stated that physical restraints were not utilized during every dental procedure. Staff G stated they did not put in a provider order when implementing physical restraints, but that a consent was obtained annually from resident representatives for implementation of physical restraints during dental procedures. Staff G stated that least restrictive measures were not conducted every time physical restraints were to be implemented for a resident and that they should have been. Staff G stated they document a dental progress note for residents, but that the note did not include all the required information that was on the restraint orders and monitoring form. Staff G stated they had not been completing the restraint orders and monitoring form for restraints implemented during the residents' dental procedures. Staff B stated the correct process was not being followed for the implementation of physical restraints with residents' dental procedures. During an interview on 06/06/2025 at 1:06 PM, Staff A, Administrator, stated that implementation of physical restraints during resident dental procedures was not being completed correctly. Staff A stated that least restrictive measures should be conducted with residents before moving to the application of physical restraints. Staff A stated that a provider order should be obtained, and dental staff should be completing the restraint orders and monitoring form when implementing physical restraints. Staff A stated that facility staff were not following the correct process for the implementation of physical restraints with residents during dental procedures.
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 →
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 the acuity (the level of severity of residents' illnesses, physical, mental, cognitive limitations, and conditions) level of care required for 6 of 10 residents (Residents 2, 6, 23, 10, 15, and 17) reviewed for staffing. This failed practice placed residents at risk for unmet care needs, not receiving care planned interventions, and negative outcomes. Findings included . Review of a policy dated 10/2024, titled Level of Supervision (LOS), showed that a LOS was to be assigned to each resident to provide an appropriate degree of supervision to protect their rights, keep them safe, and to staff to the maximum extent reasonable. The LOS showed: • LOS 1- staff should have general knowledge of where residents are and what they are doing. • LOS 2- staff were to have knowledge of where the residents were at, at all times, who they were with, and what they were doing. • LOS 3- staff supervision must be positioned in a manner to protect from or deter danger. • LOS 4- staff provided one-to-one supervision allowing as much social space as possible. <Resident 2> Review of the resident's medical record showed they admitted with a diagnosis of Intellectual Disabilities (ID, limitations in cognitive functioning and skills, including conceptual, social, and practical skills) and mixed receptive-expressive language disorder (a communication disorder that affects both understanding and producing/expressing language). The 05/13/2025 comprehensive assessment showed Resident 2's cognition was severely impaired and were dependent on staff for all of their care needs. Additionally, Resident 2 required a LOS 1, and staff needed to anticipate (foresee and prepared to meet the resident ' s needs in advance since they could not communicate that themselves) their needs due to their inability to communicate verbally. <Resident 6> Review of the resident's medical records showed they admitted with a diagnosis of ID and mixed receptive-expressive language disorder. The 05/26/2025 comprehensive assessment showed Resident 6's cognition was severely impaired and required extensive assistance from staff for all of their care needs. Additionally, Resident 6 required a LOS 1, and their needs were to be anticipated by staff due to them not being able to communicate verbally. <Resident 23> Review of the resident's medical records showed they admitted with a diagnosis to include ID and mixed receptive-expressive language disorder (a communication disorder that affects both understanding and producing/expressing language). The 04/09/2025 comprehensive assessment showed Resident 23's cognition was severely impaired and was dependent on staff for eating. Additionally, the record showed Resident 23 required LOS 2 and staff were to anticipate their needs due to their limited ability (four words) to communicate verbally. An observation on 06/02/2025 at 11:56 AM, showed Resident 6 sitting in their wheelchair (w/c) with their plate of food sitting in front of them on the table. Resident 23 was sitting in a recliner waiting for their food to be served. Residents 6 and 23 both required the assistance of staff to eat but the staff were busy assisting the other two residents. At 11:59 AM, Residents 6 and 23 were assisted with their lunch, after the other two residents that required assistance had eaten. An observation on 06/03/2025 at 5:09 PM showed two staff members, Staff H, Registered Nurse, and Staff I, Nursing Assistant (NA), that were available to assist residents with their meals. Residents 2, 6, and 23 had not had their dinner served and all three residents required staff assistance with eating. Staff H was assisting a fourth resident who required assistance with eating. Staff H stated they were helping Staff I assist the residents to eat because they were short-handed (not enough staff). Staff I stated when they were short staffed the residents are the ones to suffer, because look at [Resident 6], they haven't eaten yet and the residents had to wait until one of the staff were finished with the residents they were currently assisting. Staff I stated Resident 23 had not eaten yet either. An observation on 06/04/2025 at 11:38 AM, showed Resident 2 sitting at the table without their meal. Resident 6 sat in their w/c in between the two dining room tables, and Resident 23 walked out into the dining area, from the back of the cottage (out of eyesight of staff), both residents were not served their meals. Staff R, NA, was sitting at one of the tables assisting another resident with their meal. There were no other staff observed. Staff R stated the other NA had gone on their lunch break. Staff R stated there were two NA staff assigned to the cottage, and another one would float from one cottage to the other to help. At 11:55 AM, Staff K, NA, returned from lunch and assisted Resident 6 with their meal. Then, at 12:16 PM, Staff R sat down at the table to assist Resident 2 with their meal (38 minutes after the first resident was observed assisted with their lunch) and at 12:36 PM, Resident 23 received assistance with their meal (58 minutes after the first resident was observed being assisted with their lunch). Staff R stated there were four residents that required assistance with eating and even if they were not short of staff, they still would not have enough staff for all the residents to eat their meals together. <Resident 10> Review of the resident's medical records showed they admitted with diagnoses to include ID. The 03/11/2025 comprehensive assessment showed Resident 10's cognition was moderately impaired and had inattentive (not paying attention to something) behaviors. Additionally, the record showed Resident 10 required a LOS 3 and the staff needed to anticipate their needs due to their limited verbal skills and use of body language. The record showed Resident 10 did not like the bathroom door closed all the way, so staff were to stand in the doorway while Resident 10 was toileted. <Resident 15> Review of the resident's medical records showed they admitted with diagnoses to include ID and mixed receptive-expressive language disorder. The 03/13/2025 showed Resident 15's cognition was severely impaired and required extensive assistance from staff for eating. The assessment showed Resident 15 had wandering behaviors. Additional review of the record showed Resident 15 required a LOS 4. <Resident 17> Review of the resident's medical records showed they admitted with diagnoses to include ID and PICA (an eating disorder where a person compulsively eats things that aren't food and don't have any nutritional value or purpose). The 03/15/2025 comprehensive assessment showed Resident 17's cognition was moderately impaired and required partial to moderate assistance of staff for toileting. Additionally, review of the record showed Resident 17 required a LOS 2 and their care needed to be anticipated due to their non-verbal and body language communication. An observation on 06/02/2025 at 10:48 AM showed Staff V, NA, was one on one with Resident 15 who was exit seeking. Staff T, NA, and Staff P, NA, were at the back of the cottage assisting with a mechanical lift transfer, and there was a volunteer reading to a resident in the dining room area. Resident 17 waited until staff walked out of their sight and jumped up from the table and walked quickly to the refrigerator, took out a black condiment container, scooped out a big bite with their finger and put it in their mouth. In the container was fry sauce (mayonnaise mixed with ketchup). The volunteer yelled out for the staff and Staff T ran to the refrigerator to intercept Resident 17 from eating the remainder of the container. During an interview on 06/03/2025 at 4:25 PM, Staff M, NA, stated they were short staffed because two of the NAs scheduled for this cottage were sent over to cottages 405 and 406 because they were also short staffed. Staff M stated when they were short staffed it could make providing care very challenging, especially during mealtimes. Staff M stated it was not an ideal situation because you had to prioritize and choose who was going to receive care first. Staff M stated when they were short staffed and needed to provide care to another resident, they would have to leave a LOS 2 resident without supervision until they were finished. During an interview on 06/03/2025 at 4:50 PM, Staff W, NA, stated the normal staffing pattern was to have six NAs, but most of the time they only had five NAs. Staff W stated that day (06/03/2025) the maximum staff was four and they would float back and forth from cottage to cottage to cover lunches, breaks, or help if they needed it. Staff W stated having four staff instead of six meant it would take longer to get to the needs of the residents because they would have to wait until someone was available from another cottage to help or if the other cottage called for help, they would have to wait until someone returned from their break. During an interview on 06/04/2025 at 10:19 AM, Staff L, Licensed Practical Nurse, stated they had one NA scheduled in cottage 402 with five residents who required being transferred with a mechanical lift (a device used to raise or lower people using mechanical systems like hydraulics, pulleys, or gears). The NA would have to go and prepare the residents to transfer to and from their bed and wheelchair and then the resident would have to sit there and wait for a NA to come from the other cottage to help transfer them (when using a mechanical lift, they require two staff for safety). Staff L stated they had quite a few NAs off work for injuries they had sustained while working in another cottage that housed residents with severe combative (ready or eager to fight)/physical behaviors (cottages 405 and 406) when that cottage is short staffed, the NAs were pulled from all the other ones to ensure they had the staff they needed, which made the rest of us have to work short staffed. Review of a list provided by the facility on 06/04/2025 titled OJI (on the job injury)/Out list, showed 15 NAs and one Registered Nurse were currently out or injured and not working. Review of the list showed 12 of the 15 NAs were from the day shift, one was from the swing shift, and two were from the night shift. An observation on 06/04/2025 at 11:08 AM showed Staff S, NA, and Staff P, NA, were the available assigned staff and Staff T, NA, was at lunch. Staff S was one on one with Resident 15, who had exit seeking behaviors and was actively seeking an exit. Staff S was walking in and out of resident rooms with Resident 15 and up and down the hallways in the back of the cottage. Staff P prepared residents for lunch at the front of the cottage and assisted Resident 17 in the restroom at the back of the cottage. Resident 10 assisted themselves to the restroom at the opposite end of the hall at the back of the cottage, pulled their pants down, and sat on the toilet. The door to the restroom was left open. While Resident 10 was sitting on the toilet, Resident 15 was walking out of the room right outside of the restroom and looked into the restroom at Resident 10. Resident 15 then continued up and down the hallway outside of the restroom where they could visibly see Resident 10 in the restroom. Resident 10 then stood up, pulled up their pants without wiping, and walked back to the dining area for lunch. Additional observation at 11:14 AM showed Staff T had returned from lunch and assisted Resident 10 to the restroom again in an attempt to clean them up from the previous trip to the restroom. Resident 10 had escalated behaviors of screaming and yelling and Staff T was attempting to redirect them. There were loud noises of someone yelling (possibly another resident alerting staff) at the front of the cottage when Resident 17, who had been sitting at the table in the dining area waited until Staff T walked out of their sight and quickly walked to the refrigerator and took out a white Styrofoam container, took the lid off, and scooped their finger into the dish and put it into their mouth. Staff T quickly walked away from Resident 10 who was sitting on the toilet, with the door open, to go and intercept Resident 17 from the refrigerator. Staff P and Staff S had assisted other residents during this time. Staff T stated Resident 17 needed to be a higher level of care because of their history of eating everything in sight and because they waited until the staff were not in their sight and would hurry and get into things. An observation on 06/05/2025 at 12:13 PM, showed Resident 17 walked to the restroom from the dining area, pulled their pants down, sat on the toilet, with the door open while Resident 10 (the opposite sex) walked up and down the hallways in visible sight of Resident 17 sitting on the toilet. While Resident 10 was walking towards the bathroom door, Resident 17 stood up, pulled up their shorts, and walked back to the dining room. The other NA assisted other residents with lunch and Resident 15 was outside one on one with a NA. During an interview on 06/06/2025 at 1:38 PM, Staff B, Director of Nursing Services, stated their process was to staff the cottages with the LOS required for the residents specific to that cottage and not the level of care each resident required. Staff B stated they had not been made aware that Resident 17 should have had their LOS assessed and changed. Staff B stated they had five NA vacancies and several on the job injured staff that were not working.
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 →
**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 administration and the state survey agency (SA) abuse hotline as required for 1 of 1 resident (Resident 1) reviewed for reporting allegations of abuse. Failure to report an incident of potential abuse placed residents at risk for additional abuse. Findings included . Review of the Washington State Reporting Guidelines for Nursing Homes (Purple Book) dated October 2015, showed that for the purposes of reporting abuse, abandonment, neglect, financial exploitation, sexual assault and physical assault, a nursing home employee (or other mandated reporter) was required to make a report if they had reasonable cause to believe the incident occurred. Examples of reasonable cause may include: The individual observes the incident or hears the victim state it happened. Record review of the facility's policy titled, Resident Incident Management 2.02, dated 09/30/2024, showed that abuse and neglect of vulnerable adults was prohibited by law and would not be tolerated. All facility employees, contractors, volunteers, and students must report every incident observed, reported, or suspected abuse of residents to the Complaint Resolution Unit (CRU, State Agency [SA] abuse hotline). After fulfilling the duty as a Mandated Reporter, they must also report the incident to the Director of Nursing Services (DNS) and Superintendent (Nursing Home Administrator, NHA) or Officer of the Day (designee). <Resident 1> Record review showed the resident was admitted to the facility with diagnoses to include autistic disorder (a condition related to brain development that impacts how a person perceives and socializes with others), moderate intellectual disabilities (a condition that involves limitations on intelligence, learning and everyday abilities necessary to live independently) and disruptive mood disorder (when an adolescent experiences ongoing irritability, anger and frequent, intense temper outbursts). Review of the 09/11/2024 comprehensive assessment showed the resident had moderate impaired cognition and had daily physical and verbal behaviors directed towards others. These behaviors put the resident and others at risk for physical injury. Record review of a 10/31/2024, 9:00 AM facility incident report showed on 10/30/2024, Resident 1 appeared to have a bruise to their right eye while at school and stated they were hit in the eye by a facility staff. The information came through e-mail from Resident 1's public school teacher and was received the morning of 10/31/2024. The facility administration removed the identified staff from direct care and initiated an investigation. Record review of a 10/31/2024 at 3:12 PM nursing progress note showed Resident 1 returned from school at 1:55 PM and was assessed for injuries in response to the report from the resident's school teacher. Staff C, Registered Nurse, documented there were no injuries to Resident 1's face or eyes. The resident's skin color appeared at baseline. During an interview on 11/26/2024 at 1:20 PM, Staff G, Licensed Practical Nurse, stated they also saw Resident 1 on 10/31/2024 after they returned from school. Staff G stated that they were in the resident's room with Staff C and Staff B, DNS, while Resident 1 was assessed for injuries. Staff G stated there were no bruises anywhere to the resident's face or around the eyes. During an interview on 11/26/2024 at 1:40 PM, Staff E, stated they were in the dining area on 10/30/2024 around 2:00 PM and heard Resident 1 state someone hit them, pointing to their right eye and was laughing. Staff E stated they did not see anything on the resident's face. Staff E stated they did not report what the resident said to SA per an online report or phone call to CRU or the superintendent. Record review of Resident 1's behavior log entry dated (late entry) 10/31/2024 showed Staff D, Nursing Assistant (NA), documented that on 10/30/2024 at 2:00 PM, Resident 1 was sitting at the table and said they had a black eye, and someone hit them. There were no signs of black on either eye. During a telephone interview on 11/27/2024 at 12:15 PM, Staff D stated on 10/30/2024 at 2:00 PM, they heard Resident 1 say they thought they had a black eye, pointing to their right eye, stated someone hit them. Staff D stated they did not report what Resident 1 said to the SA or notify the superintendent and should have. Review of an 11/08/2024 Developmental Disabilities Administration (DDA) Statewide Investigation Unit ([NAME]- performs impartial abuse and neglect investigations in state residential facilities) report showed that they could not substantiate the allegation of a staff hitting Resident 1. Further review of the investigation showed Staff D, NA, and Staff E, NA, were aware of the abuse allegation made by Resident 1 on the afternoon of 10/30/2024 and did not report to the SA or the superintendent as required. During an interview on 11/26/2024 at 3:15 PM, Staff F, Assistant Superintendent, stated that the facility staff that heard Resident 1 say someone hit them should have reported as they had been trained. Reference: WAC 388-97-0640(2)(b)(5) This is a repeat citation from the Statement of Deficiencies dated 09/03/2024.
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 →
**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 (not later than two hours after the allegation was made) reported allegations of abuse to the facility administration and State Agency (SA) and to implement timely interentions to protect 2 of 2 residents (Resident 1 and Resident 3) reviewed for abuse reporting. This failure placed the residents at risk for continued abuse, potential for harm, and diminished quality of life and constituted an immediate jeopardy (IJ). On 08/29/2024 the facility was notified of the noncompliance identified at the level of an IJ in F-Tag 609, 42 CFR §483.12(c)(1) Reporting of Alleged Violations, for failure to ensure staff reported alleged abuse immediately to both the facility Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) and Stage Agency (SA) abuse hotline that resulted in a delay of up to 17 days to remove the alleged perpetrators from direct resident care. The facility removed the immediacy on 08/30/2024 with an onsite verification from investigators. The facility provided all staff mandatory training on Abuse, Neglect, and Mandatory Reporting with a live instructor in a classroom setting prior to working with vulnerable adults. The staff training plan included on-call staff and new hires. Staff were provided with a small how to report card during the live training that included numbers for the SA abuse hotline and a designated Officer of the Day (NHA/Superintendent and Director of Nursing Services [DNS]), who were on-call and available 24 hours, seven days a week. Findings included . Record review of the facility's policy titled, Resident Incident Management 2.02, dated 08/22/2023, showed that abuse and neglect of vulnerable adults was prohibited by law and would not be tolerated. All facility employees, contractors, volunteers, and students must report every incident observed, reported, or suspected abuse of residents to the Complaint Resolution Unit (CRU) (SA abuse hotline.) After fulfilling the duty as a Mandatory Reporter, they must also report the incident to the DNS and Superintendent (NHA) or Officer of the Day (designee). <Resident 1> Record review showed Resident 1 was admitted on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses including profound intellectual disabilities (a condition that involves limitations on intelligence, learning and everyday abilities necessary to live independently) and autism (a condition related to brain development that impacts how a person perceives and socializes with others). Review of the 06/01/2024 comprehensive assessment showed Resident 1 had no speech, highly impaired vision and moderate cognitive impairment. The resident had self-injurious behaviors (SIB) that put them at risk for injury to themselves. Review of Resident 1's care plan, dated 06/14/2024, showed that they exhibited severe SIB, such as slapping self, punching their head or pulling their hair. Staff had interventions to redirect the behavior by identifying what the resident needed and if not redirectable, the staff had a protective helmet and mitts they could apply with a physician order to protect the resident from injury. <Allegation 1> Record review of a 07/25/2024 witness statement written by Staff M, Nursing Assistant (NA), showed that on a day they worked evening shift in cottage 405/406 (shift log showed it was on 06/29/2024) they observed Staff N, NA, physically abuse Resident 1. They stated that they reported the incident the following day (06/30/2024) to their supervisor, Staff O, NA Supervisor. Staff M did not report to the facility NHA and the SA abuse hotline within the required time frame. Review of a 07/16/2024 Developmental Disabilities Administration (DDA) Statewide Investigation Unit ([NAME]- performs impartial abuse and neglect investigations in state residential facilities) report showed the facility administration was informed of an allegation that Staff N had hit Resident 1 on the head to stop their behaviors, no date or time of the alleged abuse was provided. The facility removed Staff N from resident care when the Administrator was made aware of the incident (17 days after alleged abuse). Review of a 07/29/2024 DDA [NAME] report showed that Staff O stated that Staff M reported to them on 06/30/2024 that the day prior, they observed Staff N hit Resident 1 in the head. Staff O reported they told Staff M that they needed to report the allegation to the SA abuse hotline and to Staff P, NA Manager. Staff O stated that they reported the 06/29/2024 allegation, to Staff Q, NA Charge, by telephone on 07/01/2024. Staff O stated that they reported the allegation during a meeting with Staff P on 07/23/2024. Staff O and Staff Q did not report the alleged abuse to the NHA or SA abuse hotline. Review of a 07/16/2024 DDA [NAME] report showed that based on the information available, there was insufficient evidence to conclude the allegation occurred. The investigation had been turned over to law enforcement on 07/10/2024. <Allegation 2> Review of a witness statement written by Staff D, NA, on 07/08/2024, showed that on 07/06/2024 at 10:00 PM, Resident 1 was lying down in bed and could be heard tapping on their head. [I] redirected to not hit [them]self and told [them] it's bedtime. [Staff C, NA] goes in and kicks [Resident 1] in the face. [I] told [Staff C] to leave, [Resident 1] had no response and went to bed. Review of Staff D's, statement from a 07/12/2024 at 11:00 AM interview, documented in a 07/10/2024 DDA [NAME] report, showed that they were confused and in shock and did not know what to do and they reported to their shift charge (Staff Q) after they had left work on 07/06/2024. Staff D did not report to the NHA and SA abuse hotline. Review of Staff F's, NA, statement from 07/15/2024 at 1:57 PM, documented in the 07/10/2024 DDA [NAME] report showed that they walked in directly behind Staff C and saw them lift their leg towards Resident 1. Staff F stated they then saw Staff C raise their arms over their head and bringing them down on Resident 1. Staff F stated they did not directly see where Staff C hit or kicked Resident 1 but heard the sound of making impact. Staff F did not report what they witnessed to the facility NHA and SA abuse hotline. Review of the 07/06/2024 facility initial incident report showed that Staff Y, Licensed Practical Nurse, was notified of the allegation of abuse at 10:47 PM, the DNS designee and the NHA designee were both notified at 11:00 PM. Review of a statement written by Staff R, Registered Nurse, dated 07/07/2024 at 9:23 PM, showed they were made aware of the allegation of abuse on 07/06/2024 at 11:00 PM. Staff R reported they went to cottage 405 and found [Staff C] was still working in the cottage and stocking the clean linen room. I asked [Staff C] to remove [them]self from the cottage to protect the residents. Record review of the State complaint tracking system showed the State Agency abuse hotline received an online/portal report of the abuse allegation on 07/07/2024 at 12:49 AM. <Resident 3> Record review showed Resident 3 was admitted on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses including cerebral palsy (a group of conditions that affect movement and posture. It's caused by damage that occurs to the developing brain, most often before birth), unspecified intellectual disabilities (a condition that involves limitations on intelligence, learning and everyday abilities necessary to live independently), and adjustment disorder (excessive reactions to stress that involve negative thoughts, strong emotions and changes in behavior). Review of the 07/14/2024 comprehensive assessment showed Resident 3 had no speech, highly impaired vision, and moderate cognitive impairment. Review of Resident 3's care plan, dated 04/14/2024, showed they could be unsteady with walking, did not understand personal space, would get too close to others trying to touch or pinch, and was obsessive about taking their clothes off. Review of an 08/03/2024 facility incident report showed on 08/02/2024 at 2:25 PM, Staff J, NA, and Staff H, NA, observed Staff I drag Resident 3 across the floor to their bedroom. The NHA designee was notified on 08/03/2024 at 12:50 AM (10.5 hours after alleged abuse was witnessed). The SA abuse hotline was notified on 08/03/2024 at 1:21 AM (11 hours after alleged abuse). Review of an 08/03/2024 DDA [NAME] report showed on 08/09/2024 at 12:51 PM Staff J stated that they were shocked by what they witnessed Staff I do with Resident 3 and that they did not know what to do and reported the incident to Staff P, NA supervisor, on 08/02/2024 at 10:00 PM. During an interview on 08/14/2024 at 2:03 PM Staff I, NA, stated that they worked in cottage 203 on 08/02/2024 and denied they handled Resident 3 in a rough manner before the end of their shift. Staff I stated they started work at 6:00 AM on 08/03/2024 in cottage 203. They stated at 7:30 AM they were told by Staff V, Registered Nurse, to go up to the duty desk (a central staffing office) for the rest of the day and 08/04/2024. (17 hours after alleged abuse.) During an interview on 08/14/2024 at 2:40 PM, Staff H stated they witnessed Staff I drag Resident 3 to their bedroom on 08/02/2024. Staff H stated they knew Staff J reported what they witnessed to their supervisor, Staff P, NA. Staff H stated they had been trained to report abuse by calling the SA abuse hotline, notify the nurse and the NA Manager/supervisor, however they did not report because they knew Staff J had reported. During an interview on 08/15/2024 at 1:45 PM, Staff J stated that after the incident occurred, they did not say anything to any one until I reported to [Staff P], my supervisor, at 10:00 PM when they came to work. [Staff P] told me to call the state abuse hotline and found the phone number for me. During an interview on 08/30/2024 at 3:38 PM, Staff B, Assistant Superintendent (Assistant NHA), stated we should not have missed these reports of abuse, it was expected that all staff know how to report abuse allegations. Reference: WAC 388-97-0640(2)(b)(5)(a)(6)(b)(7)(a)
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 →
**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 cognitively impaired residents (Resident 1 and Resident 3) reviewed for allegations of abuse. This failure resulted in physical harm when Resident 1 who had severe cognitive impairment, dependence on staff, and was unable to express discomfort, was kicked in the face. Resident 1 experienced psychosocial harm, applying the reasonable person concept when Resident 1 had a change in sleep behaviors and eating patterns and seemed more withdrawn. This failure placed the residents at risk for further abuse, injury, and diminished quality of life. Findings included . Review of the State Operations Manual (SOM), Psychosocial Outcome Severity Guide dated 10/24/2022, showed when a resident's reaction to a deficient practice (such as physical abuse) were markedly incongruent (or different) with the level of reaction a reasonable person in the resident's position would have to the physical abuse (such as the facility being their home with the expectation of safety and trust in the facility staff to protect them from harm). Record review of the facility's policy titled, Resident Rights 1.02, dated 06/30/2023, showed that residents have the right to legal protections from mental, physical, and sexual abuse. Record review of Developmental Disabilities Administration (DDA) policy titled, Protection from Abuse: Mandatory Reporting 5.13, dated 07/2024, showed abuse and neglect of vulnerable adults is prohibited by law and will not be tolerated. <Resident 1> A record review showed Resident 1 was admitted on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses including profound intellectual disabilities (a condition that involves limitations on intelligence, learning and everyday abilities necessary to live independently), autism (a condition related to brain development that impacts how a person perceives and socializes with others), insomnia (a sleep disorder characterized by difficulty falling asleep or staying asleep) and anxiety disorder (the mind and body's reaction to stressful, dangerous, or unfamiliar situations). Review of the 06/01/2024 comprehensive assessment showed Resident 1 had no speech, highly impaired vision and moderate cognitive impairment. The resident had self-injurious behaviors (SIB) that put them at risk for injury to themselves. Review of Resident 1's care plan dated 06/14/2024 showed that they exhibited severe self-injurious behaviors, such as slapping self, punching their head or pulling their hair. Staff had interventions to redirect the behavior by identifying what the resident needed and if not redirectable, the staff had a protective helmet and mitts they could apply with a physician order to protect the resident from injury. Further review of Resident 1's care plan showed that when awake, they were on a Level of Supervision (LOS) 4: One-to-one supervision, allowing as much social space as possible. Supervision must be positioned in a manner to prevent danger or harm to self or others. If the resident were in their room, staff were to be positioned outside the door, with the curtain pulled, staff were to be positioned outside their door and perform visual checks (eyes on Resident 1) every five minutes. When sleeping, the resident was on a LOS 3: supervision must be positioned in a manner to protect from or deter danger. Staff were to provide 15-minute checks when they were asleep, and the curtain was pulled. <Allegation 1> Record review of a 07/25/2024 witness statement written by Staff M, Attendant Counselor Nursing Assistant (NA) showed that on a day they worked evening shift in cottage 405/406 (shift log showed the date was 06/29/2024) while they were one-to-one supervision with Resident 1, they observed Staff N, NA, hit Resident 1 in the head around 5:30 PM. They stated that they took Resident 1 to the toilet and noticed they had a soiled incontinent brief. They asked Staff N to keep an eye on the resident while they got a new brief and disposed the soiled one. Staff M stated that when they returned to the bathroom, Staff N was telling Resident 1 that they needed to sit down (on the toilet) and push. Resident 1 began hitting themselves in the head and Staff N proceeded to also hit the resident in the head stating that was how to get Resident 1 to stop their SIB. Resident 1's SIB did not stop, and the nurse was notified and helped take Resident 1 to their room to apply their safety gear. Review of a 07/16/2024 DDA Statewide Investigation Unit ([NAME]- performs impartial abuse and neglect investigations in state residential facilities) report showed the facility was informed of an allegation that Staff N had hit Resident 1 in the head to stop their behaviors, no date, time or name of witness of the alleged abuse was provided. The facility removed Staff N from resident care. Based on the information available at the time, there was insufficient evidence to conclude the allegation occurred. The investigation had been turned over to law enforcement on 07/10/2024. Review of nursing progress notes from 06/29/2024 showed that Resident 1 had three episodes of SIB between 6:00 PM and 9:20 PM. The resident required application of their helmet and mitts due to Resident 1 pulling their hair, hitting their face/head with fists and biting their wrists. The nurse documented at 9:30 PM that there was no open skin on the resident's wrists nor other skin injuries observed from Resident 1's attempts at SIB. Review of Resident 1's sleep and meal consumption logs from 06/29/2024, 06/30/2024 and 07/01/2024 showed no changes to their usual sleeping and eating habits. <Allegation 2> Review of a 07/10/2024 DDA [NAME] report showed that through several witness reports and the change in Resident 1's sleep behavior, it was more likely than not that on 07/06/2024 Staff C, NA, kicked Resident 1 (in the face). Staff C was removed from direct resident care after the incident. Review of a witness statement written by Staff D, NA, on 07/08/2024, showed that on 07/06/2024 at 10:00 PM, Resident 1 was lying down in bed and could be heard tapping on their head. [I] redirected to not hit [them]self and told [them] it's bedtime. Staff C goes in and kicks [Resident 1] in the face. [I] told [Staff C] to leave, [Resident 1] had no response and went to bed. Review of a nursing progress note dated 07/07/2024 showed that on 07/06/2024 at 10:50 PM Resident 1 was examined from head to toe. The nurse observed the resident's right cheek was light red, no other injuries were found, and the resident went right back to sleep. Review of Staff E's, NA, statement from 07/11/2024 at 6:45 PM phone interview, documented in the 07/10/2024 DDA [NAME] report showed, Staff E was in the cottage 405 hall near Resident 1's bedroom, on 07/06/2024 at 10:00 PM. They could hear Resident 1 in the beginning stages of a behavior and asked Staff D if they needed help with Resident 1's safety gear (helmet/mitts). Staff E stated that Staff C started walking to Resident 1's room and stated 'oh, I want some of this' with Staff F, NA, behind them. Staff E stated within seconds, they (Staff C and Staff F) were walking out of the room giggling and there were no sounds coming from Resident 1's room. Staff E asked them 'what did you do to get [Resident 1] to stop the behavior' and they just ignored Staff E. Review of Staff G's, NA, statement from 07/15/2024 at 1:22 PM interview, documented in the 07/10/2024 DDA [NAME] report, showed that they were hanging around the hallway of cottage 405 by the bedrooms around 10:00 PM on 07/06/2024. Staff G stated they saw Staff C and Staff F enter Resident 1's bedroom. Staff G walked towards the room and stood by a short distance outside of the doorway. Staff G stated they saw Staff C pick up their right leg, like they were going to kick Resident 1, at the same time Staff F was closing the curtain. Staff G stated that they 'found it strange' that they were handling a behavior with the lights off and closing the curtain. Staff G stated they didn't hear Resident 1 after they closed the curtain only heard Staff C state you need to stop and go to sleep. Review of Staff F's statement from 07/15/2024 at 1:57 PM, documented in the 07/10/2024 DDA [NAME] report showed that they walked in directly behind Staff C and saw them lift their leg towards Resident 1. Staff F stated they then saw Staff C raise their arms over their head and bringing them down on Resident 1. Staff F stated they didn't directly see where Staff C hit or kicked Resident 1 but heard (the sounds of) making impact. During an interview on 08/07/2024 at 2:54 PM, Staff D refused to talk about what they witnessed on 07/06/2024 and stated, I don't want to talk, you can read my statement and ended the interview. During an interview on 08/07/2024 at 3:15 PM, Staff E, stated they were assigned one-to-one for a resident in the bedroom next to Resident 1 on 07/06/2024. Staff E stated they could hear Resident 1 start hitting themselves, I stated, is [Resident 1] going to SIB? Staff D, who was the assigned one-to-one, stood up, but Staff C headed for Resident 1's room and stated 'oh, I want some of this'. Staff F was behind Staff C, and they went into Resident 1's room with Staff D following. I heard the privacy curtain close. Staff D came out quick. I said, wow you got [Resident 1] to calm down fast. Staff D had a look of shock on their face and said, a yeah. Staff C and Staff F both came out of the room. I did not know what happened until the next day. I started my shift at 2:00 PM with Resident 1, they were sleeping and according to their sleep log had slept the whole day. Resident 1 woke up for dinner and then returned to bed and this was not normal for them. During an interview on 08/08/2024 at 4:35 PM, Staff L, NA, stated they worked evening shift in cottage 405 on 07/06/2024. Staff L stated they were in the back hallway around the time of the incident talking with Staff E and had their back to Resident 1's room. Staff L stated they heard a bit of a commotion from the room, then Resident 1 got quiet, the room got quiet. After Staff C and Staff F went to the front of the cottage, Staff D looked worried, anxious and was pacing. Staff L stated they followed Staff D into Resident 1's room and saw Staff D use their cell phone flashlight to check the right side of Resident 1's face. Staff D did not say what they were looking for. Staff L stated that the next day Resident 1 was really out of it, they slept a lot, skipped dinner and a snack, that was real unusual behavior. During an interview on 08/09/2024 at 3:05 PM, Staff K, NA, stated that they worked evening shift in cottage 405 on 07/07/2024. Staff K stated that Resident 1 was not their normal self, they seemed withdrawn and was sleeping more than usual. Staff K stated they looked at Resident 1's sleep log and they had slept all on day shift and on evening shift until 8:00 PM. <Resident 3> A record review showed Resident 3 was admitted on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses including cerebral palsy (a group of conditions that affect movement and posture. It's caused by damage that occurs to the developing brain, most often before birth), unspecified intellectual disabilities (a condition that involves limitations on intelligence, learning and everyday abilities necessary to live independently), and adjustment disorder (excessive reactions to stress that involve negative thoughts, strong emotions and changes in behavior). Review of the 07/14/2024 comprehensive assessment showed Resident 3 had no speech, highly impaired vision and moderate cognitive impairment. Review of Resident 3's care plan dated 04/14/2024 showed they could be unsteady with ambulation, did not understand personal space, would get too close to others trying to touch or pinch and was obsessive about taking their clothes off. Further review of the care plan showed Resident 3 was a LOS 3 (supervision must be positioned in a manner to protect from or deter danger. Enhanced staffing was required) when the resident was awake. They were a LOS 2 (knowledge of where resident was at all times, whom they were with and what they were doing) when asleep. Review of an 08/03/2024 DDA [NAME] report showed that based on two staff witness statements, it was more likely than not that on 08/02/2024 Staff I, NA, drug Resident 3 across the floor from the living area to the resident's bedroom by dragging Resident 3's lower body as they held the top of the torso with their arm hooked under Resident 3's shoulder. Review of an 08/03/2024 at 11:01 AM nursing progress note showed that Resident 3 had a full body check with no injuries found. Review of an 08/03/2024 witness statement written by Staff H, NA, showed that on 08/02/2024 at 2:15 PM, they observed Resident 3 begin taking off their shoes while sitting in a recliner in the cottage 203 living area. They stated Staff I walked up to Resident 3, grabbed their shirt pulling them aggressively to the floor. Resident 3 then grabbed another resident's shirt who was also sitting on the floor. Staff H stated they got between the two residents, and Staff I then drug Resident 3 back to their bedroom. After Resident 3 got to their room, they started taking off their clothes and the privacy curtain was closed let Resident 3 cool down. Record review of an 08/03/2024 witness statement written by Staff J, NA, showed that on 08/02/2024 at 2:25 PM they observed Resident 3 throwing their shoes on the floor. Staff I told Resident 3 to take their shoes to their room three times. The third time, Staff I suddenly grabbed Resident 3's shirt and pulled them out of the recliner and when on the floor, Resident 3 grabbed another resident's shirt. During an interview on 08/14/2024 at 2:03 pm, Staff I stated they worked in cottage 203 on 08/02/2024. They stated that Resident 3 was sitting in a recliner in the living area and started to remove and toss their shoes. Staff I asked Resident 3 to grab their shoes and let's go to your room, the resident had no response. Staff I stated they gave the verbal que again, but the resident scooted forward in the chair, sat on the floor and grabbed another resident's shirt. Staff I stated that after a couple minutes, Resident 3 stood up on their own and were directed to their room by walking next to the resident. Staff I denied pulling the resident out of the recliner and denied dragging the resident across the floor back to their bedroom. During an interview on 08/14/2024 at 2:40 PM, Staff H stated they witnessed the incident in cottage 203 on 08/02/2024. Staff H stated Resident 3 was upset because they wanted to go on a walk and could not at that time. Resident 3 was sitting in a recliner and started to take off their shoe and tossed it. Staff I told Resident 3 to pick up your shoe and let's go to your room. Staff H stated, Resident 3 shook their head no and took off the other shoe. Then Staff I walked over to Resident 3 and grabbed the front of the resident's shirt and pulled them off the chair. Resident 3 was then laying on the floor and reached out to grab another resident's shirt. I got in the middle and pried Resident 3's fingers off the shirt. Staff H stated, [Staff I] was now grabbing Resident 3 by the wrists to get them up, but they would not stand, and while the resident was on their back, Staff I drug Resident 3 to the back hall with Staff J walking behind Staff I. Staff H stated they heard Resident 3 screaming after they were all out of sight around the corner. During an interview on 08/15/2024 at 1:45 PM, Staff J stated that on 08/02/2024 at shift overlap Resident 3 was seated in a recliner in the cottage 203 living area and had just returned from a recreation outing. They observed Resident 3 take off their shoe and toss it on the floor. Staff I told Resident 3 to put your shoe back in your room. Resident 3 then removed their other shoe and tossed it to the floor. Staff I said again put your shoes back in your room. The third time Staff I told Resident 3 to pick up their shoes, Staff I approached Resident 3 and hooked their arm under the resident's left arm making an upward motion. Resident 3 slid onto the floor and grabbed another resident's shirt. Resident 3, now laying on the floor, was grabbed by Staff I on to the left upper arm and front of the resident's shirt, and was drug across the floor by Staff I, who was walking backwards. Staff J stated they helped Staff I by lifting both of Resident 3's legs by holding their feet. Staff J stated Resident 3 was screaming and yelling when they got back to their bedroom. Resident 3 got up on their bed and removed all their clothing. Staff J stated they felt it was wrong and was in shock that Staff I did that. During an interview on 08/15/2024 at 2:45 PM, Staff B, Assistant Superintendent, stated that they were shocked at the abuse that had occurred and did not understand why this was happening. These residents do not deserve to be treated this way. Reference: WAC- 388-97-0640 (1), (3)(a)
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 →
**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 the immediate reporting of abuse according to CFR §483.12(c)(1) and a written policy to define how staff will communicate and coordinate situations of abuse with the quality assurance performance improvement (QAPI) program according to CFR §483.12(b)(4), and failed to ensure implementation of the facility procedure to immediately notify the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA), and State Survey Agency of abuse violations was followed by staff. This failure caused a delay of protection for 2 of 2 residents (Resident 1, 3) reviewed for allegations of abuse, and placed the residents at risk for unrecognized abuse and unmet care needs. Findings included Record review of the facility's policy titled, Resident Incident Management 2.02, dated 08/22/2023, showed that abuse and neglect of vulnerable adults was prohibited by law and would not be tolerated. All facility employees, contractors, volunteers, and students must report every incident observed, reported, or suspected abuse of residents to Complaint Resolution Unit (CRU) (State Agency- SA abuse hotline). After fulfilling the duty as a Mandatory Reporter, they must also report the incident to the Director of Nursing Services (DNS) and Superintendent (NHA) or Officer of the Day (NHA designee). The facility reporting policy, Resident Incident Management 2.02, did not include the requirements of CFR §483.12(c)(1) F609, Reporting Alleged Violations, to report immediately, but not later than two hours after the allegation is made, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury, or not later than 24 hours if the events that caused the allegation did not involve abuse and do not result in serious bodily injury, to the NHA of the facility and to other officials (including to the State Survey Agency and adult protective services where state law provides for jurisdiction in long-term care facilities) in accordance with State law through established procedures. Review of the Developmental Disabilities Administration (DDA) policy titled, Protection from Abuse: Mandatory Reporting 5.13, dated 07/2024, showed that the policy applied to all DDA employees, contractors, volunteers, interns and work-study students; abuse and neglect of vulnerable adults was prohibited by law and would not be tolerated; when there was reasonable cause to believe that any client had been abused, neglected, or exploited, they must immediately make a report to the investigative agency, Residential Care Services (RCS, state hotline), immediately after making the report to the investigative agency, a mandated reporter must also report the incident to their immediate superior or the next highest supervisor in the facility. Review of the facility abuse policies showed no policy or procedure for communicating and coordinating allegations of abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property, and exploitation with the QAPI program. <Resident 1> A record review showed Resident 1 was admitted on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses including profound intellectual disabilities (a condition that involves limitations on intelligence, learning and everyday abilities necessary to live independently) and autism (a condition related to brain development that impacts how a person perceives and socializes with others). Review of the 06/01/2024 comprehensive assessment showed Resident 1 had no speech, highly impaired vision and moderate cognitive impairment. The resident had self-injurious behaviors (SIB) that put them at risk for injury to themselves. Review of Resident 1's care plan, dated 06/14/2024, showed that they exhibited severe self-injurious behaviors, such as slapping self, punching their head or pulling their hair. The care plan included interventions for staff to redirect the behavior by identifying what the resident needed and if not redirectable, the staff had a protective helmet and mitts they could apply with a physician order to protect the resident from injury. Review of a 07/29/2024 DDA Statewide Investigation Unit ([NAME]- performs impartial abuse and neglect investigations in state residential facilities) report showed that Staff M, Nursing Assistant (NA), stated they observed Staff N, NA, hit Resident 1 in the head on 06/29/2024. Staff M stated they did not report the incident to anyone at the facility before leaving at the end of their shift. Staff M did not report to the facility NHA and state hotline according to facility policy. Review of Staff D, NA's, statement from 07/12/2024 at 11:00 AM interview, documented in a 07/10/2024 DDA [NAME] report, showed that they witnessed Staff C, NA, kick Resident 1 in the face on 07/06/2024. They stated they were confused and in shock and did not know what to do. Staff D stated they reported to their shift charge (Staff Q, NA ) after they had left work on 07/06/2024. Staff D did not report to the facility NHA and state abuse hotline according to facility policy. <Resident 3> A record review showed Resident 3 was admitted on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses including cerebral palsy (a group of conditions that affect movement and posture. It's caused by damage that occurs to the developing brain, most often before birth) and unspecified intellectual disabilities (a condition that involves limitations on intelligence, learning and everyday abilities necessary to live independently). Review of the 07/14/2024 comprehensive assessment showed Resident 3 had no speech, highly impaired vision and moderate cognitive impairment. Review of an 08/03/2024 facility incident report showed on 08/02/2024 at 2:25 PM, Staff J, NA, and Staff H, NA, observed Staff I, NA, drag Resident 3 across the floor to their bedroom. Staff J and Staff H did not report to the facility NHA and state abuse hotline according to policy. During an interview on 08/08/2024 at 8:30 AM, Staff U, Social Service Training Specialist, stated they did the annual and new staff Abuse, Neglect, Mistreatment and Mandatory Reporting training. They based their training on the policy, Protection from Abuse: Mandatory Reporting 5.13. When instructing staff where to report witnessed or suspected abuse, they were told to report to the unit nurse and the State Hotline. Staff U stated they were not aware of any time frames for reporting. During a telephone interview on 08/15/2024 at 9:40 AM, Staff AA, QAPI program manager, stated that although information about facility incidents were reported at QAPI, there was no specific policy related to QAPI and abuse allegations and they had just been made aware of the requirement. During an interview on 08/15/2024 at 2:50 PM, Staff B, Assistant Superintendent, stated their abuse policies directed staff to immediately notify the state hot line and the unit nurse. The unit nurse usually would notify the administrative staff like the DNS or Superintendent/designee. Staff B stated they did not have QAPI included in their abuse policies. Reference: WAC 388-97-0640(2)(b)(5)(a)(7)(a)(i)
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 →
**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 residents (Resident 1, 2, 3, 4), reviewed for the right to privacy. Resident 1, 2, 3 and 4's images were recorded on a staff member's (Staff C, Nursing Assistant (NA)) personal cell phone without the resident's and/or designated representative's consent and sent in text messages to an individual outside the facility. This failure placed the residents at risk for embarrassment, a violation of their privacy, and a decreased quality of life. Findings included . Record review of the facility's policy titled, Cell Phone/Telephone/Intercom Usage, dated 09/26/2023, showed a staff must never use a personal electronic device to photograph or record residents and information involving or identifying residents must never be sent or shared via text message or social media. Record review of the facility's policy titled, Resident Privacy, dated 09/26/2023, showed personal privacy will be made available to all individuals, staff will be respectful of each individual's dignity and need for modesty. Record review of a Developmental Disabilities Administration 5-Day Investigation Report, dated 06/14/2024, showed the facility received notification by an anonymous reporter that Staff C, NA, sent photographs of Resident 1 and comments such as [Resident 1] has been going off for 2 hours Right now I'm just disgusted with [Resident 1] from the staff's personal electronic device. The facility's investigator obtained copies of 14 photographs sent to the anonymous source that included images of Resident 1 and the images of Resident 2, Resident 3 and Resident 4. The photographs were taken on night shift in the living and dining areas. The residents were clothed and either sitting or lying about the area. <Resident 1> Record review of Resident 1's medical record showed they were admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include intermittent explosive disorder (repeated, sudden bouts of impulsive, aggressive, violent behavior or angry verbal outbursts), autistic disorder (a condition related to brain development that impacts how a person perceives and socializes with others) and intellectual disabilities (a condition that involves limitations on intelligence, learning and everyday abilities necessary to live independently). Review of a 03/29/2024 comprehensive assessment showed Resident 1 had severe cognitive impairment, had physical behaviors directed towards self and others and required extensive assistance from staff for their activities of daily living (ADL). Review of the 03/29/2024 plan of care showed Resident 1 had a goal to be free of harm to self and others. <Resident 2> Record review of Resident 2's medical record showed they were admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include intellectual disabilities, autistic disorder, and impulse control disorder (conditions where individuals have impulses that are difficult or impossible to resist). Review of a 06/12/2024 comprehensive assessment showed Resident 2 had severe cognitive impairment, had physical behaviors directed towards self and others and required supervision from staff for their ADLs. Review of the 03/24/2024 plan of care showed Resident 2 had a goal to be free of harm to self and others. <Resident 3> Record review of Resident 3's medical record showed they were admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include severe intellectual disabilities and autistic disorder. Review of a 05/30/2024 comprehensive assessment showed Resident 3 had moderate cognitive impairment, had physical behaviors directed towards self and others and required supervision from staff for their ADLs. Review of the 03/08/2024 plan of care showed Resident 3 had a goal to be free of harm to self and others. <Resident 4> Record review of Resident 4's medical record showed they were admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include intellectual disabilities and intermittent explosive disorder. Review of a 06/12/2024 comprehensive assessment showed Resident 4 had moderately impaired cognition and required supervision from staff for their ADLs. Review of the 04/04/2024 plan of care showed Resident 4 had a goal to be free of harm to self and others. During an interview on 06/14/2024 at 10:00 AM, Staff A, Administrator, stated Staff C was a NA who worked the night shift on Resident 1's living unit. During an interview on 07/01/2024 at 10:45 AM Staff B, Assistant Administrator, stated the facility's investigator obtained 14 photos that were taken between August and December of 2023. During a telephone interview on 07/01/2024 at 12:35 PM, the Anonymous Reporter (AR), stated Staff C would send them texts and photos while working at the facility at night a couple times a week. They stated that Staff C reportedly would say they knew they should not be sending these photos for confidentiality reasons. The AR stated they reported this in April 2024 because it seemed like the right thing to do. Attempts on 07/01/2024 at 1:40 PM and 4:20 PM to contact Staff C by telephone failed. Review of the investigation showed, on 06/18/2024 at 10:00 PM, the facility investigator interviewed Staff C who denied taking any pictures of residents with their personal cellular phone or sending any pictures of residents to others via text or any social media. During an observation on 07/01/2024 at 3:30 PM of an enhanced staffed (three staff for four residents) Cottage 405 showed Resident 2 and Resident 3 pacing around the living unit. Staff D, NA, stated the two residents had line-of-sight, one-to-one staff assigned to them. During an observation on 07/01/2024 at 4:15 PM, Resident 1 was seated at the dining table in the enhanced staffed Cottage 406. Staff E, NA, was in the dining area with Resident 1. Staff E stated they were assigned one-to-one for Resident 1, required to stay in close proximity that allowed for personal space. The facility investigator concluded on 06/21/2024 that it appeared more likely than not that Staff C did take pictures of facility residents while at work and sent them by text to an individual that did not work at the facility and violated Resident's 1, 2, 3and 4's right to privacy. On 07/01/2024 at 4:30 PM, Staff B stated they were aware this was a violation of resident rights. Reference: WAC 388-97-0360 (1)
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 →
**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 dignity for 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident 12) reviewed for gastrostomy tube ([GT], a surgically placed tube in the stomach to allow liquid food and water to be given). This failure placed the resident at risk for psychosocial harm and lack of privacy. Findings included . <Resident 12> Resident admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis to include GT and developmentally delayed. The comprehensive assessment dated [DATE], showed Resident 12 had severely impaired cognition and was dependent of two staff members with activities of daily living. During an observation on 04/25/2024 at 2:54 PM, Resident 12 was observed sitting in their wheelchair in the common area with other residents and staff. Staff P, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), was observed lifting Resident 12's shirt exposing the resident's stomach and disconnected the tube feeding port from the gastrostomy port. During an interview on 04/26/2024 at 1:01 PM, Staff M, LPN, stated if they needed to access or disconnect a resident's GT or indwelling medical device, they would take the resident back to their room or a private area, put on personal protective equipment (PPE) and complete the task. Staff M stated accessing a resident's GT in the common area in front of other residents was a dignity issue. Reference: WAC 388-97-0860(1)(2)
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 →
**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 residents and/or resident representative (RR) for 2 of 9 sampled residents (Resident 43 and 47) reviewed for personal fund accounts. This failure placed residents at risk of not having an accurate accounting of their personal funds held in trust by the facility. Findings included . Review of a policy titled, Local Funds, dated 02/2023, showed statements were to be mailed quarterly to the residents or RR. <Resident 43> The resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis including intellectual disabilities, and epilepsy. The comprehensive assessment dated [DATE] showed the resident had severely impaired cognition and required assistance of one staff member for activities of daily living (ADLs). During an interview on 04/22/2024 at 3:48 PM, the RR stated they had only received a statement regarding Resident 43's personal funds three times since they had admitted to the facility. Review of the quarterly statement logbook showed the last quarterly statement mailed to Resident 43's RR was signed and dated on 10/12/2023. <Resident 47> The resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis including learning disabilities). The comprehensive assessment dated [DATE] showed that resident had severely impaired cognition and required extensive assistance of one staff member for ADL's. During an interview on 04/23/2024 at 9:22 AM, the RR stated they had not received any statements regarding Resident 47's personal funds. Review of the quarterly statement logbook showed there had been no quarterly statement mailed to Resident 47's RR as of 04/26/2024. During an interview on 04/26/2024 at 2:27 PM, Staff A, Administrator, stated they were behind on mailing the quarterly statements and their expectations was for statements to be mailed out quarterly. Reference WAC 388-97-0340(3)(a)(b)(c)
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 →
**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 ([PASARR], an assessment to ensure individuals with serious mental illness [SMI] or intellectual/developmental disabilities [ID/DD] are not inappropriately placed in nursing homes for long term care) were correct on admission and corrected/updated as needed for 2 of 5 residents (Resident 47 and 50 ) reviewed for unnecessary medications. This failure placed the residents at risk for not receiving the care and services appropriate for their needs. Findings included . <Resident 47> Resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis including anxiety disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder ([ADHD] marked by an ongoing pattern of inattention and/or hyperactivity-impulsivity that interferes with functioning or development.) The comprehensive assessment dated [DATE] showed that resident had severely impaired cognition and required extensive assist of one staff member for activities of daily living (ADL's). Review of Resident 47's 10/20/2023 PASARR, showed under section I, SMI/ID all diagnosis were marked as no including anxiety disorder. <Resident 50> Review of Resident 50's medical records showed the resident admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include insomnia (a common sleep disorder that can make it hard to fall asleep or stay asleep), and post-traumatic stress disorder ([PTSD],a mental health condition that's triggered by a terrifying event-either experiencing it or witnessing it). Review of the quarterly comprehensive assessment dad 02/12/2024, showed the resident's cognition was severely impaired and was dependent for bed mobility, transfers, and walking. Review of Resident 50's 01/29/2024 PASARR, showed under section I, SMI/ID all diagnosis were marked as no including other psychotic disorder. The resident had a diagnosis of PTSD that was not included. During an interview on 04/24/2024 at 4:01 PM, Staff CC, Resident Care Coordinator (RCC), stated the only thing they do with the PASARR is note the date it was completed in the resident's care plan and social services reviews them for accuracy. During an interview on 04/24/2024 at 4:19 PM, Staff BB, Institutional Counselor 3, stated they were responsible for receiving the PASARRs but did not review them for accuracy upon admission or update them when a resident had a change in diagnoses. They were not aware that needed to be done and stated, we have had no training on that. During an interview on 04/25/2024 at 3:21 PM, Staff A, Administrator, stated that their expectation was for the RCC to review the PASARR for accuracy and to contact the PASARR coordinator or work with social services to get them corrected. Reference: WAC 388-97-1915 (1)(2)(a-c)
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 →
**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 or interventions in place while they were receiving psychotropic medications (drugs that affect brain activities associated with mental processes and behavior) for 1 of 5 residents (Resident 39) reviewed for unnecessary medications. This failure placed the resident at an increased risk for experiencing medication-related adverse side effects, and unnecessary medications. Finding included . <Resident 39> Review of Resident 39's medical records showed the resident admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include Cerebral Palsy ( a group of disorders that affect a person's ability to move and maintain balance and posture), seizures [ a burst of uncontrolled electrical activity between brain cells (also called neurons or nerve cells) that causes temporary abnormalities in muscle tone or movements (stiffness, twitching or limpness)], developmental disorders of speech and language (a communication disorder that interferes with learning, understanding and using language), and violent behavior (any behavior by an individual that threatens or actually harms or injures the individual or others or destroys property). Review of the quarterly comprehensive assessment dated [DATE], showed the resident's cognition was severely impaired and was independent for bed mobility, transfers, and walking. Record review of Resident 39's February through [DATE], behavior monitor sheets showed, no behaviors or interventions for staff to follow if the resident were to exhibit violent behaviors. During an interview on [DATE] at 10:57 AM, Staff T, Psychology Associate, stated that Resident 39 did exhibit behaviors and refusals of cares. Staff T stated Resident 39 should have had a behavior plan in place that included interventions. During an interview on [DATE] at 1:57 PM, Staff U, Resident Care Coordinator stated Resident 39's care plan was formulated for short-term, and Resident 39 has turned into a long-term care resident. Staff U further stated they were working on the care plan as able and, there are a lot of residents that do not have interventions on their care plan. During an interview on [DATE] at 9:18 AM, Staff B, Director of Nursing Services, stated that they would expect that individualized targeted behaviors and non-pharmacological interventions would be in the resident's care plan for staff to follow. Reference WAC: 388-97-1060 (3)(k)(i) Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free of unnecessary psychotropic medications (drugs that affect brain activities associated with mental processes and behavior) for 1 of 5 residents (Resident 39) reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility failed to ensure individualized targeted behaviors were being monitored while they received psychotropic medications. These failures placed residents at an increased risk for experiencing medication-related adverse side effects, and unnecessary medications. <Resident 39> Review of Resident 39's medical records showed the resident admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include Cerebral Palsy ( a group of disorders that affect a person's ability to move and maintain balance and posture), Seizures [ a burst of uncontrolled electrical activity between brain cells (also called neurons or nerve cells) that causes temporary abnormalities in muscle tone or movements (stiffness, twitching or limpness)], Developmental disorders of speech and language (a communication disorder that interferes with learning, understanding and using language), violent behavior (any behavior by an individual that threatens or actually harms or injures the individual or others or destroys property). Review of the quarterly comprehensive assessment dated [DATE], showed the resident's cognition was severely impaired and was independent for bed mobility, transfers, and walking. During record review on [DATE] at 3:42 PM, Review of resident 39's behavior binder showed, no interventions for staff to follow if the resident had expressed behaviors. During an interview on [DATE] at 10:57 AM, Staff T, Psychology Associate, stated that when Resident 39 was not feeling well they will have some behaviors and refuse cares. Their behaviors will be expressed only if they are not feeling well. Staff T then stated we have determined that resident 39 should have had a behavior plan in place. During an interview on [DATE] at 1:57 PM, Staff U, Resident Care Coordinator (RCC) stated that resident 39's violent behavior is not a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) diagnosis. The Psychologist will find the appropriate diagnosis for their medications. Their behavior has been minimal, both their mother and brother died close together. Their care plan was formulated for a short-term resident and has turned into a long-term care resident. We are working on the care plan as we go, there is a lot of residents that don't have interventions on their care plan. Redirection is what staff are using. The care plan looks like the nurse just put in their behaviors and no interventions. During an interview on [DATE] at 9:18 AM, Staff B, Director of Nursing Services, stated that they would expect that the non-pharmacological interventions would be in the resident's care plan for staff to follow. Reference WAC: 388-97-1060 (3)(k)(i)
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 →
**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 resident (Resident 39 ), by not wearing the proper Personal Protection Equipment (PPE, equipment worn to minimize exposure to hazards that cause serious workplace injuries and illnesses) during COVID-19 (an infectious disease causing respiratory illness with symptoms including cough, fever, new or worsening malaise, headache, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, loss of taste or smell, and in severe cases difficulty breathing that could result in severe impairment or death) isolation, perform hand hygiene and glove changes between dirty and clean tasks (after touching the resident and/or the resident's environment). These failures placed residents at risk for development of communicable diseases and the spread of infections. Findings included . Review of the facility's policy titled, Infection Control Program revised on 11/2023, showed that the purpose was to prevent the development and/or transmission and disease to residents while providing a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment in which clients reside. Review of the facility's policy titled, Covid Response revised on 03/2024, showed that higher level (N95) masks will be utilized with Aerosol Contact Precautions in units with active transmission, and with suspected or confirmed cases of COVID-19. <Resident 39> Review of Resident 39's medical records showed the resident admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include Cerebral Palsy ( a group of disorders that affect a person's ability to move and maintain balance and posture), seizures [a burst of uncontrolled electrical activity between brain cells (also called neurons or nerve cells) that causes temporary abnormalities in muscle tone or movements (stiffness, twitching or limpness)], and developmental disorders of speech and language (a communication disorder that interferes with learning, understanding and using language). Review of the quarterly comprehensive assessment dated [DATE], showed the resident's cognition was severely impaired and was independent for bed mobility, transfers, and walking. During an interview and concurrent observation on 04/22/2024 at 9:03 AM, In Cottage 203 all staff were wearing surgical masks. Staff D, Nursing Assistant (NA), stated that Staff C, Infection Preventionist (IP) directed staff to wear surgical mask until the COVID test results for Resident 39 came back. Observation of Resident 39's room showed the door was wide open with an isolation cart next to the doorway and an aerosol sign that gave direction to wear a N95 respirator (a respiratory protective device designed to achieve a very close facial fit and efficient filtration of air borne particles), gown, goggles, and gloves prior to entering room. During an interview on 04/22/2024 at 1:16 PM, Staff C, IP, stated Resident 39 was tested on [DATE] with a rapid COVID-19 test that was inconclusive (leading to no conclusion or definite result) so they sent out a another COVID-19 test to be tested at the lab. Staff C stated if the rapid test would have been positive, they would have moved Resident 39 to the COVID unit. It was on Friday 04/19/2024 that the facility sent the test to the lab. Staff were monitoring all residents for symptoms, and staff remained in surgical masks. During an interview on 04/23/2024 at 10:25 AM, Staff D, NA, stated they had transitioned to wearing surgical masks sometime last week, either 04/17/2024 or 04/18/2024. Observation on 04/23/2024 at 10:28 AM, showed Resident 39 had an isolation cart next to the doorway with an aerosol sign above the cart, and the room door was wide open. All staff working in the cottage were wearing surgical masks. Resident 39 was clean, well groomed, walked into the common area without a mask and sat down in a recliner. Further observation showed no staff redirecting the resident back to his room to maintain their isolation precautions. During an interview on 04/22/2024 at 2:47 PM, The Local Health Jurisdiction (LHJ), stated if a rapid test was inconclusive and if residents were eating and wandering throughout the cottage, staff were to remain in source control to include, N95 respirator, goggles, gowns, and gloves until the COVID-19 lab test results were negative. <Dining Room Hand Hygiene> Review of the facility's policy titled, Hand Hygiene dated 07/27/2023, showed Hand hygiene should be performed: • Before and after caring for a resident or when moving from a contaminated task to a clean task. • Before and after performing invasive procedures. • Before and after handling food. During an observation on 04/24/2024 at 11:28 AM, Staff R, Speech Language Pathologist, removed a meal from the cart, stirred, and scooped the food on to a plate. Staff R delivered the plate to a resident sitting at the dining room table. Staff R obtained a cup of milk and grasped the cup by the rim while they set the cup on the table next to the resident. During this observation Staff R did not perform hand hygiene or apply gloves. During an observation on 04/24/2024 at 11:57 AM, Staff S, NA, obtained a clean plate and transfers food from a bowl to the plate without gloves or performing hand hygiene. <PPE use for residents on EBP> During an observation on 04/25/2024 at 2:43 PM, Staff P, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), exited room [ROOM NUMBER]A, Cottage 402, an aerosol precautions room related to the COVID-19 virus, wearing only gloves. Staff P entered the next resident room, 4A, without removing their gloves or performing hand hygiene. During an interview on 04/25/2024 at 2:45 PM, Staff P was asked what PPE was required for the Aerosol Precaution room. Staff P stated gown, gloves and an N-95 mask. Staff denied being in room [ROOM NUMBER]A. <Resident 12> The resident admitted to the facility with diagnosis to include gastrostomy tube ([GT], a surgically placed tube in the stomach to allow liquid food and water to be given), developmentally delayed. The comprehensive assessment dated [DATE], showed Resident 12 had severely impaired cognition and was dependent of two staff members with activities of daily living. During an observation on 04/25/2024 at 2:57 PM, Staff P, LPN, was observed in the dining room in Cottage 401 accessing Resident 12's GT port. Staff P removed the feeding tube from Resident 12's GT port while wearing only gloves. They did not put on the additional required gown and face protection. During an interview on 04/26/2024 at 1:01 PM Staff M, LPN, stated if they had a resident that received tube feeding, they would take the resident back to their room, perform hand hygiene, put on a gown, gloves and eye or face protection, and unhook the resident. They further stated when they were finished with resident care, they would take off the PPE in the room, perform hand hygiene, and take the resident back to the common area. Staff M explained they would take the resident back to their room because accessing an indwelling medical device such as a GT required infection control. They stated the new enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) required them to wear a gown, gloves, and eye protection when accessing a GT. During an interview on 04/25/2024 at 3:01 PM, Staff S, NA, and Staff O, NA, stated if a resident was on EBP they only need to gown and glove when moving or providing care in the resident's room, not when they were in the common areas. Reference WAC: 388-97-1320 (1)(c),(2)(b),(1),(2),(3)
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 →
**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, found in a single locked drawer during one medication pass for 5 of 11 residents (Residents 4, 7, 26, 31, and 35) reviewed for medication administration. This failure placed residents at risk of receiving incorrect medication, adverse side effects and increased the facility's risk for medication errors. Findings included . <Resident 4> Review of the resident's medical record showed the resident admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include epilepsy (a neurological disorder that causes seizures or unusual sensations and behaviors) and depression (a mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest). <Resident 7> Review of the resident's medical record showed the resident admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include intellectual disability ([ID] a condition that limits intelligence and disrupts abilities necessary for living independently), epilepsy, and cerebral palsy (a group of conditions that affect movement and posture caused by brain damage before birth). <Resident 26> Review of the resident's medical record showed the resident admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include ID and epilepsy. <Resident 31> Review of the resident's medical record showed the resident admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include ID, cerebral palsy, and epilepsy. <Resident 35> Review of the resident's medical record showed the resident admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include ID and epilepsy. During a concurrent observation of medication administration and interview on 04/26/2024 at 11:35 AM, showed cottage 401 medication cart's top drawer contained five pre-poured medications in cups. Three of the cups were in clear, 30 milliliter (a type of measurement) medication cups, two of them unlabeled, with crushed, white medications and the third one contained a thick, clear liquid. The other two cups were dixie cups (a paper cup coated with plastic to make them waterproof) with multiple-colored crushed medications mixed with chocolate pudding. Staff AA, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), was being trained by Staff M, LPN, stated the medications belonged to five residents. Staff AA further stated their normal practice was not to pre-pour medications. During an interview on 04/26/2024 at 2:47 PM, Staff M stated it was not the normal process to pre pour any medications. During an interview on 04/26/2024 at 3:44 PM, Staff B, Director of Nursing Services, stated Staff AA did not follow the correct process and they would have expected them to prepare and distribute medications for residents one resident at a time. Reference: WAC 388-97-1300(2)
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 →
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 for 3 of 8 Cottages (Cottages 401, 402, and 403) reviewed for food storage. This failure placed the residents at risk of receiving food or drink that decreased their quality of life and had the potential to cause harm. Findings included . <Cottage 403> An initial tour observation on 04/22/2024 at 9:37 AM, the refrigerator/freezer showed expired food as follows: • two frozen waffle molds (food that is blended up and then shaped back into the shape it originated as), expired 06/14/2023. • two frozen pear molds, expired 11/02/2024. • two frozen roast beef molds, expired 12/15/2023. • two frozen corn molds, expired 10/12/2023. • in the refrigerator, a white bowl, half full of peaches, uncovered and undated. • round, pink/brownish colored cup half full of white, thick liquid, undated. Additionally, in the cupboard above the sink, there were five (7.25 ounce) cans of chicken noodle soup that expired 11/22/2023. <Cottage 401> During an observation on 04/22/2024 at 10:10 AM, the unit freezer contained: • A pint (a unit of measure) -sized white foam container with a white lid, labeled fruit paste with no date. <Cottage 402> During an observation on 04/22/2024 at 10:10 AM, the unit freezer/refrigerator contained: • A pint-sized white foam container with a white lid, labeled fruit paste with no date. • The unit refrigerator contained an identical container labeled fruit paste with an expired date of 4/16 written on the lid in black ink. During an observation on 04/25/2024 at 3:27 PM, a printed paper taped to the front of the refrigerator showed the month of April 2024 with instructions to record the daily temperatures of the unit refrigerator / freezer and to perform a deep cleaning on Sundays. The temperatures were required to be within the range of 35-41 degrees Fahrenheit (F). The temperatures were not documented daily for the dates below: • 04/07/2024, 04/08/2024, 04/14/2024, 04/15/2024, and 04/21/2024. • The documentation showed no deep cleaning had been performed. During an interview on 04/22/2024 at 9:41 AM, Staff Y, Registered Nurse, stated the Nursing Assistants (NA) were responsible for ensuring all foods were checked for dates daily and thrown out if they were expired. During an interview on 04/22/2024 at 9:45 AM, Staff V and Staff W, NAs, stated they were responsible for ensuring the expired foods were disposed of and were to check during each shift. Staff V and Staff W stated they had overlooked the expired foods. During an interview on 04/22/2024 at 10:18 AM, Staff Z, Dietary Manager, stated it was the responsibility of the NAs to check, clean and dispose of expired foods from the refrigerator/freezer. Reference: WAC 388-97-1100(3)
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 →
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 shower rooms all reviewed for a homelike environment. This failure placed residents at risk for a diminished quality of life. Findings included . Recliners/dining chair An observation on 06/05/2023 at 11:25 AM in Cottage 403, showed a black recliner located next to the garage entrance/exit door that had the imitation leather torn and ripped and had gathered leather that created sharp edges on areas of the back rest, both arms, and the seat of the chair. An observation on 06/05/2023 at 1:09 PM in Cottage 404, showed a brown recliner with imitation leather material that was ripped and had pointed edges on the top of both arm rests. The left inner side of the back rest had ripped, missing material with sharp edges, and the backrest of the chair had a 2-to-3-inch split. An observation on 06/08/2023 at 8:20 AM in Cottage 402, showed two recliners in the living room that had 3-to-4-inch rips/splits in the imitation leather. Further observation showed a dining chair with 2 beige arm protectors that had button snaps that covered a blue sponge like pad. The blue pad had numerous spots of dirt and food on the blue pad. Additionally, the back of the chair had a cushion with imitation leather which was gathered at the edge and created sharp rough edges. An observation on 06/08/2023 at 10:19 AM in Cottage 406 showed a brown recliner in the living room. The recliner had a 10-inch by 12-inch irregular shaped area of missing material on the back rest which exposed the cloth underneath. During an interview on 06/08/2023 at 2:36 PM, Staff A, Superintendent, acknowledged the recliners needed to be replaced and stated the facility had been working on replacing the recliners. Shower Rooms During an observation and concurrent interview on 06/08/2023 at 8:43 AM in Cottage 402, showed a shower table with a red vinyl pad that was worn and had rough cracked seams. Staff C, Nursing Assistant (NA), stated the residents lie on the red pad during showers. An observation on 06/08/2023 at 11:23 AM in the Cottage 404 shower room, showed a gray bath gurney (a wheeled stretcher used for transporting a resident) was worn down and faded in color, and on the outer edge had a crescent-shaped chunk of material missing from the bed. Additionally, the gurney had a broken/missing end cap of the hand/foot grip to the right-side metal bar, exposing a metal sharp inner edge. During an interview on 06/08/2023 at 4:15 PM, Staff D, Maintenance, stated the staff were to write up a work order for worn equipment and was not made aware of the issues with the shower equipment. During an interview on 06/09/2023 at 9:44 AM, Staff A stated they were not aware of the condition of the equipment in the shower rooms. Reference WAC 388-97-3220(1)
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

  • "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

Strengths
  • • 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.
Concerns
  • • 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.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 48/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

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.