← Back to search results

BELLINGHAM SOUTH OF CASCADIA, LLC

BELLINGHAM, WA · Whatcom County · For profit - Corporation · 44 certified beds

📍 2400 Samish Way, Bellingham, WA 98229  ·  📞 (360) 734-4800

Medicare ID: 505140  ·  Last Medicare inspection: Feb 13, 2026

Overall Safety Score
61
out of 100
Fair
Component Scores
48
Inspection
83
Staffing
28
Enforcement
70
Complaints
79
Quality
📋 Last inspected: February 13, 2026 📦 CMS data as of: May 2026

Score Breakdown

Inspection
48
Staffing
83
Enforcement
28
Complaints
70
Quality Outcomes
79

What the numbers mean

BELLINGHAM SOUTH OF CASCADIA, LLC scored 61 out of 100 — near the state average.

📋 Inspections: 37 citations over the last 36 months — 5 fewer than the state average (42). 4 were rated serious (G+) — inspectors found actual or potential harm to residents. 7 findings recurred across inspection cycles — indicating a problem that was not fixed.

👥 Staffing: Staffing is within an acceptable range but not among the highest-performing facilities. Ask about nurse coverage on evenings, nights, and weekends when you visit.

⚠️ Penalties & enforcement: CMS has recorded 3 enforcement actions totaling $69,274 against this facility. Penalties are only issued after a facility fails two levels of regulatory review — meaning this is a serious escalation beyond a standard citation. Ask for a written explanation of every fine and what corrective actions were taken.

💬 Complaints: Some complaint-driven inspections have occurred. These are unannounced visits triggered by formal concerns from residents, families, or staff. Ask the facility how they handle resident grievances.

📊 Resident quality outcomes: Quality outcome measures are in an acceptable range. Some measures are at or near national benchmarks. Review the quality section in the full report for specifics.

What inspectors found (last 3 surveys)

37
Total citations
State avg: 42.3
4
Serious (G+)
State avg: 1.9
7
Repeat findings

Top concern areas

37

⚖ Penalties & Enforcement

Federal civil monetary penalties (CMPs) are only issued after a facility has failed two levels of regulatory review — meaning problems were found on inspection and the facility could not rebut the findings. This is a serious escalation beyond a standard citation.

$69,274
Total federal fines
3
Enforcement actions

⚠ Each enforcement action required CMS to make a separate non-compliance determination — meaning this facility failed two levels of regulatory review before any fine was issued. Ask management specifically what violations triggered these fines and what corrective steps were taken.

📋 Enforcement Context Analysis
📊
Enforcement score: 28/100 — 28 points below the state average of 56/100 — worse than most comparable facilities. A score below 70 indicates a meaningful enforcement history that warrants direct conversation with facility management.
Serious Citations That May Have Triggered Enforcement
F0694 — Resident was harmed · Feb 13, 2026
Pressure ulcer prevention & treatment — Resident was harmed · Jan 9, 2024
Accident & hazard prevention — Resident was harmed · Nov 22, 2023

📅 Per-action enforcement records (date, fine amount, and penalty type for each individual action) are sourced from a separate CMS enforcement dataset and will be added in a future data update.

🩹

Resident Wellbeing — Key Indicators

These are the measures families ask about most. They come from CMS clinical assessments of every resident — not just inspection reports. Stars (★) count toward the official CMS quality star rating.

Antipsychotic medication use
1.8% lower is better
Share of long-stay residents given antipsychotic drugs. High use can signal residents being over-medicated rather than receiving attentive care.
Flu vaccination rate
4.8% higher is better
Share of long-stay residents vaccinated against the flu this season. Higher is better.
Re-hospitalized after discharge
21.5% lower is better
How often short-stay residents who went home ended up back in the hospital within 30 days. Risk-adjusted for resident health.
Hospitalization rate
5.1% lower is better
How often long-stay residents were hospitalized over the past year. Adjusted for how sick residents were.

Source: CMS MDS Quality Measures & Medicare claims data. Scores shown are the most recent 4-quarter averages for long-stay residents.

Track this facility with free email alerts

Get notified when new inspections, citations, score changes, or enforcement actions are published for this facility.

🟡
Overall Assessment — Use Caution  ·  61/100
This facility has mixed results. Some areas need a closer look before you decide.
What to do next: Proceed carefully. Ask management directly about the specific concerns listed in this report.
Federal Penalty: $69,274 (3 separate actions)
CMS has imposed civil monetary penalties totaling $69,274 against this facility. Penalties are only levied after a separate non-compliance determination — meaning a facility must fail two levels of regulatory review before a fine is issued. Ask management specifically what violations triggered these fines and what corrective actions were taken.

What this facility's data shows

📋 Inspections
Inspection record is well below average. Multiple or serious deficiencies found.
👥 Staffing
Staffing levels are adequate — RN hours and nurse-to-resident ratios meet or exceed benchmarks.
⚖ Penalties
Facility has received federal fines or enforcement sanctions. Requires direct explanation from management.
💬 Complaints
Some complaint activity. Ask how the facility handles concerns raised by residents and families.
Quality outcomes are acceptable overall but some measures are below benchmarks. See the How Are Residents Doing section.
⚠ Serious Findings on Record: 4 citation(s) where inspectors found actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents. See Section D for the full details and ask management how each was resolved.
Score breakdown — the numbers behind this assessment
👥 Staffing 83
What it measures RN hours per resident per day, total nurse hours, and RN turnover rate.
💡 Understaffing is the strongest single predictor of poor inspection outcomes.
📋 Inspection 48
What it measures Number, severity (A–L), and scope of deficiencies found. Repeat findings carry extra weight.
💡 Every citation in Section D feeds directly into this score.
⚖ Penalties 28
What it measures Whether CMS escalated from a deficiency citation to actual financial or operational sanctions.
💡 A penalty means the facility already failed a second level of regulatory review.
💬 Complaints 70
What it measures Volume of complaint-triggered inspections and the share that were substantiated.
💡 Complaint surveys are unannounced — they often surface issues annual surveys miss.
🎯 Quality outcomes 79
What it measures Resident outcome measures: falls, pressure ulcers, antipsychotic use, weight loss, hospitalizations.
💡 Reflects the lived experience of residents beyond what inspectors observe.

Each pillar scores 0–100 and is combined into the overall score. A strong overall can mask a weak pillar — compare all four and see how they stack against the state average in Section B.

🏗 How This Facility Compares to WA State Averages

Comparing a facility to others in the same state puts its score in context. A facility might have 8 citations and that could be above average in one state and below in another. Green means this facility is doing better than its peers; red means it's falling short.

Metric This facility WA avg vs. State
Overall score
The combined Senior Care Report Card score out of 100.
61 65 ▼ Worse than state avg
Inspection score
How well the facility performs on standard health surveys.
48 51 ▼ Worse than state avg
Staffing score
RN hours, total nurse hours, and staff turnover from CMS payroll data.
83 73 ▲ Better than state avg
Penalty score
Fines, payment denials, and enforcement actions on file.
28 56 ▼ Worse than state avg
Complaint score
Volume of complaint surveys and substantiated complaints.
70 82 ▼ Worse than state avg
Quality score
Resident clinical outcomes vs national benchmarks: falls, antipsychotics, pain, vaccination, hospitalizations.
79 65 ▲ Better than state avg
Citations (3 yrs)
Total number of deficiencies cited in the last 36 months.
37 42.3 ▲ Better than state avg
Serious citations
Citations rated severity G or higher (actual harm or immediate jeopardy).
4 1.9 ▼ Worse than state avg

📅 Inspection Timeline

State health inspectors visit nursing homes on a regular cycle — typically every 12 to 15 months — and document every deficiency they find. The timeline below shows the date and scale of each inspection visit over the past several years. A pattern of worsening surveys is a red flag even if the most recent visit looks clean.

2026-02-13
4 citations  (1 serious)
2025-12-17
1 citations
2025-08-07
8 citations
2025-02-20
1 citations
2024-08-07
1 citations
2024-07-30
10 citations
2024-07-01
1 citations
2024-04-29
3 citations
2024-03-12
1 citations
2024-01-09
1 citations  (1 serious)

Bar length proportional to citation count. Red = serious findings (severity G+). Orange = elevated. Green = low.

📄 Full Citation Record

Every time state inspectors visit a nursing home, they write up anything that doesn’t meet federal standards. Each write-up is called a citation.

Each citation shows what the problem was and how serious it was, using a color-coded badge:

Green — No residents harmed Yellow — Risk of harm, no injury Orange — A resident was harmed Red — Life or safety in danger

A Repeat tag means the same problem appeared in a previous inspection — it was not fully corrected the first time. Citations shown cover the last two years.

Survey: 2026-02-13 4 citation(s) — 1 serious
F0694 Resident was harmed
F0694
F0755 No harm, could worsen
Pharmaceutical services
F0732 No harm, could worsen
Pharmacy policies & procedures
F0610 No harm, could worsen
Investigate & correct violations
Survey: 2025-12-17 1 citation(s)
F0686 No harm, could worsen
Pressure ulcer prevention & treatment
Survey: 2025-08-07 8 citation(s)
F0947 No harm, could worsen
Nurse aide training program
F0761 No harm, could worsen
Medication storage & labeling
F0584 No harm, could worsen
F0584
F0585 No harm, could worsen
Right to file a grievance
F0756 No harm, could worsen
Drug regimen review
F0880 No harm, could worsen
Infection prevention & control
F0677 No harm, could worsen
Personal hygiene & grooming assistance
F0658 No harm, could worsen
Services meet professional standards
Survey: 2025-02-20 1 citation(s)
F0689 No harm, could worsen
Accident & hazard prevention
Survey: 2024-08-07 1 citation(s)
F0725 No harm, could worsen
Adequate & competent nursing staff
Survey: 2024-07-30 10 citation(s)
F0726 No harm, could worsen
Nurse aide competency
F0880 No harm, could worsen
Infection prevention & control
F0658 No harm, could worsen
Services meet professional standards
F0690 No harm, could worsen
Bowel & bladder care
F0881 No harm, could worsen
Infection preventionist qualifications
F0947 No harm, could worsen
Nurse aide training program
F0636 No harm, could worsen
F0636
F0842 No harm, could worsen
Medical records accuracy & security
F0576 No harm, could worsen
F0576
F0757 No harm, could worsen
Unnecessary drugs
Survey: 2024-07-01 1 citation(s)
F0684 No harm, could worsen
Quality of care
🩹

How Are Residents Doing?

Inspections tell you whether a facility followed the rules. These measures tell you how residents actually fared — whether they fell, experienced pain, lost weight, or were over-medicated. CMS collects this data through regular clinical assessments that nurses complete for every resident. Unlike inspections, which happen once a year, these assessments happen continuously.

✓ Positive signal: Most star-rated quality measures for this facility are within a good range, suggesting residents\' day-to-day wellbeing compares favorably to typical nursing homes.

How to read these cards: Each card shows one measure. Lower percentages are better for most (e.g. fewer falls), but higher is better for vaccination rates and community return. ★ Star rating marks measures CMS uses in its official quality star rating.

Long Stay Residents — 2025Q1-2025Q4
★ Star rating
Daily activity decline
6.7% lower is better
Share of long-stay residents who lost the ability to dress, eat, or move around independently over the past year. Rising rates can signal that residents aren't receiving enough physical therapy or that staffing is too thin to support mobility.
★ Star rating
Urinary tract infections
0.0% lower is better
Share of long-stay residents who had a urinary tract infection. While some UTIs are unavoidable, high rates can point to poor hydration practices, catheter hygiene, or rushed care routines.
★ Star rating
Antipsychotic medication use
1.8% lower is better
Share of long-stay residents given antipsychotic drugs. These medications carry serious risks for older adults. High use often signals that a facility is medicating residents to manage behavior instead of addressing needs through attentive, person-centered care.
★ Star rating
Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing on…
5.9% lower is better
Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury
★ Star rating
Flu vaccination rate
4.8% higher is better
Share of long-stay residents vaccinated against the flu. Nursing homes are high-risk environments for flu outbreaks. Anything below 90% warrants a question about the facility's vaccination policy.
★ Star rating
Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure u…
4.2% lower is better
Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers
★ Star rating
Percentage of long-stay residents who received an…
16.5% lower is better
Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication
Physical restraints used
1.1% lower is better
Share of long-stay residents physically restrained (lap belts, side rails). Federal regulations require restraints to be a last resort. High use is a red flag for understaffed facilities cutting corners on behavioral care.
Signs of depression
0.9% lower is better
Share of long-stay residents showing symptoms of depression. Social isolation, lack of meaningful activities, and poor staffing all contribute. This measure reflects the emotional quality of life inside the facility.
Unexplained weight loss
0.0% lower is better
Share of long-stay residents who lost 5% or more of body weight unexpectedly. This can indicate inadequate nutrition, difficulty eating without assistance, or unaddressed medical issues.
Percentage of long-stay residents assessed and ap…
100.0% lower is better
Percentage of long-stay residents assessed and appropriately given the pneumococcal vaccine
Pneumonia vaccination rate
24.2% higher is better
Share of long-stay residents vaccinated against pneumococcal pneumonia — one of the leading causes of death in older adults. Higher is better.
Percentage of long-stay residents assessed and ap…
100.0% lower is better
Percentage of long-stay residents assessed and appropriately given the seasonal influenza vaccine
Percentage of long-stay residents with new or wor…
19.3% lower is better
Percentage of long-stay residents with new or worsened bowel or bladder incontinence
Short Stay Residents — 2025Q1-2025Q4
★ Star rating
Worsening depression symptoms
0.0% lower is better
Share of long-stay residents whose depression got measurably worse over the past year — despite being in a care facility.
Percentage of short-stay residents assessed and a…
84.1% lower is better
Percentage of short-stay residents assessed and appropriately given the pneumococcal vaccine
Emergency room visits (short-stay)
74.6% lower is better
Share of short-stay residents sent to the ER during their recovery stay. ER visits are disruptive for recovering patients and sometimes avoidable with better on-site clinical management.

Source: CMS MDS Quality Measures (2025Q1-2025Q4). Collected via standardized clinical assessments — not inspector visits.

🏥

Hospitalization & ER Visits

These numbers come directly from Medicare claims — real billing records of every time a resident was hospitalized or sent to the emergency room. They\'re among the most objective measures of care quality because they can\'t be influenced by how a facility writes up an assessment. The adjusted score is the most meaningful number — it\'s been corrected to account for how sick residents were, so a facility treating frailer patients isn\'t unfairly penalized.

What to look for: An adjusted score significantly above the expected score means this facility hospitalizes residents more often than peer facilities with similar patient populations — that gap is worth asking about directly.

Short Stay Residents — 20241001-20250930
★ Star rating
Re-hospitalized after going home
21.5% risk-adjusted rate
Actual: 22.5% Expected: 25.0%
✓ Better than expected for similar residents
How often short-stay residents who went home ended up back in the hospital within 30 days. A high rate suggests residents were discharged before they were ready, or that the facility didn't coordinate follow-up care well. Risk-adjusted so facilities treating sicker residents aren't unfairly penalized.
★ Star rating
Hospitalization rate (long-stay)
5.1% risk-adjusted rate
Actual: 5.0% Expected: 10.9%
✓ Better than expected for similar residents
How often long-stay residents were hospitalized over the past year, adjusted for how ill they were. A high rate relative to expectations suggests the facility may be sending residents to the hospital for issues that skilled nursing staff should be able to manage on-site.

Source: CMS Medicare claims data. Scores are risk-adjusted — they account for how ill residents were when admitted so facilities treating sicker populations aren\'t penalized for it.

💬 Questions to Ask Before Touring

These questions are generated specifically from this facility's score profile and citation history — not a generic checklist. A facility's willingness to answer them openly, and the quality of their answers, is itself an important signal. Bring this list when you tour or call.

  1. Federal inspectors found 4 citations rated as causing actual harm or immediate jeopardy in the public record. Walk us through each incident: what happened, who was affected, and what specific policy or staffing changes have been put in place since?
  2. What is the average response time when a resident presses a call button during the night shift?
  3. This facility has a significant CMS enforcement history. Can you identify each action in the past three years, what it was for, and what systemic — not just procedural — changes were made to prevent recurrence?
  4. How do you handle formal complaints from residents or families, and what is your typical time to resolution?
  5. 4 citations in the public record were rated as causing actual harm to a resident. Can you describe what occurred in each case and what specific safeguards are now in place?
  6. Can we speak privately with two or three current residents or their families?

👪 Family Decision Guide

This guide translates this facility's data into practical next steps for families. It is not a recommendation for or against placement — it is a structured framework for the conversations you need to have before making a decision.

✓ Positives to confirm

  • Staffing levels appear adequate — ask about weekend and night coverage
  • No pattern of repeat violations detected

⚠ Areas to probe

  • Inspection score is low — ask for the most recent state survey results
  • Penalty history present — ask what enforcement actions occurred and outcomes
  • Serious-harm citations on record — require a written explanation of corrective action
  • Always speak with at least two current residents or family members independently

📈 Score History

The score is recalculated every time CMS releases updated data (typically monthly). A consistent downward trend is more concerning than a single low score. An improving trend after a period of poor performance may indicate management changes are taking effect. Your subscription will alert you whenever the score changes materially.

2026-05-07
61 — Fair

🏢 Ownership & Operators

Ownership matters because large corporate chains sometimes prioritize cost controls over care quality. CMS requires every nursing home to disclose its owners, operators, and managing employees. Frequent ownership changes can disrupt staffing and operations — which is why we flag facilities that changed ownership in the past 12 months.

🔗 WHITE OAK HEALTHCARE FINANCE LLC operates 42 facilities across ID, CA, WA, AZ, OR, MT. This is a large operator — consider researching their overall network quality.
Owner / Operator Role Ownership % Effective
WHITE OAK HEALTHCARE FINANCE LLC Organization 1970-01-01
NELSON, TIMOTHY Individual 1970-01-01
CASCADIA WASHINGTON OPERATIONS LLC Organization 1970-01-01
CASCADIA SERVICES LLC Organization 1970-01-01
HAMMOND, OWEN Individual 1970-01-01
LAFORTE, STEPHEN Individual 1970-01-01
DHALIWAL, NAVDEEP Individual 1970-01-01
BIRRELL, TIFFANY Individual 1970-01-01

🔔 Monthly tracking is now free

We check CMS data monthly. Use the tracking form above and we will email you when new citations appear, scores change, or enforcement actions are added.

📋
Monthly report update
New citation alerts
📈
Score trend tracking
🏠 Verify this data on Medicare.gov
All data in this report comes from the CMS Care Compare database. You can review the official public record directly on Medicare.gov — including the full inspection narrative, star ratings, and any recent enforcement actions.
View on Medicare.gov ↗

This report reflects publicly available CMS data only and is updated monthly. Severity codes and narratives are reproduced directly from the CMS health inspection database. Senior Care Report Card scores are independently computed and are not affiliated with or endorsed by CMS or Medicare.gov.

Data source: CMS Care Compare · Methodology · State Ombudsman

This report uses public CMS nursing home data and simplified scoring to help families ask better questions. It is not a recommendation, ranking, medical opinion, legal opinion, or substitute for an in-person visit. Source data last published by CMS: May 7, 2026.