How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Avamere Rehabilitation at Ridgemont
2051 Pottery Avenue, Port Orchard, WA 98366 (opens Google Maps) · Kitsap County · (360) 876-4461· 96 certified beds · avg 78 residents/day · certified since Apr 7, 1972 · Medicare and Medicaid certified
Certified for both programmes. Certification means the facility can bill Medicaid — it does not mean a Medicaid-funded bed is free right now, so ask directly. Who pays for nursing home care →
Part of chain: AVAMERE (27 facilities, chain avg rating 3.0★)
4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Sep 12, 2025
1
Serious findings on record
most recent Oct 23, 2024
$0
Fines, last 3 years
3.31
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)
Every record stays on this page.
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
New to these records? How to read an inspection report →
Health inspection rating: ★★★★☆4/5 · CMS overall rating: 4/5 · how star ratings work →
The health inspection star above is graded on a curve within each state — a set share of each state's facilities gets each star level — so a facility can have few citations and still rate 2–3 stars if others in its state did even better. The overall rating combines that inspection score with staffing and quality measures from resident assessments and claims.
Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Oct 23, 2024 · F-0684 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Oct 23, 2024 · F-0684 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.
Why it matters: Care that strays from doctor's orders or ignores the resident's wishes can lead to declining health and avoidable harm.
Severity (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.
Corrected: Nov 13, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 34 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · from a complaint F-0609
The facility gave residents unnecessary mind-altering (psychotropic) medications, or used drugs in a way that restrained residents by dulling their ability to think, move, or function. F-0605
The facility did not provide required paperwork or notices about a resident's needs, their right to appeal a transfer or discharge, or the facility's bed-hold policy (how long a bed is saved during a hospital stay). F-0628
View all 34 inspection findingsShow only the latest 3 findings
CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed — that window is CMS's, not ours. Within it, every citation CMS publishes for this facility is listed here: none excluded.
| Date | Severity | What the facility was cited for |
|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · from a complaint · F-0609 |
| Sep 12, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility gave residents unnecessary mind-altering (psychotropic) medications, or used drugs in a way that restrained residents by dulling their ability to think, move, or function. · F-0605 |
| Sep 12, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide required paperwork or notices about a resident's needs, their right to appeal a transfer or discharge, or the facility's bed-hold policy (how long a bed is saved during a hospital stay). · F-0628 |
| Sep 12, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · F-0684 |
| Sep 12, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock. · F-0761 |
| Sep 12, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · F-0880 |
| Apr 23, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide appropriate care related to bladder and bowel needs — including care for residents who use catheters and steps to prevent urinary tract infections. · from a complaint · F-0690 |
| Oct 23, 2024 | ▲ G · Actual harm, isolated | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · from a complaint · F-0684 |
| Aug 27, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584 |
| Aug 27, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility allowed residents to lose the ability to do daily activities — like bathing, dressing, and eating — when there was no medical reason for the decline. Good care helps residents keep the abilities they have. · F-0676 |
| Aug 27, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · F-0684 |
| Aug 27, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not safely and appropriately administer IV fluids (fluids given through a vein) for residents who needed them. · F-0694 |
| Aug 27, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not make sure special medical diets — like low-sodium or diabetic diets — were properly ordered by the resident's doctor or managed by a qualified dietitian as state law allows. · F-0808 |
| Aug 27, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not honor residents' right to manage their own money and financial affairs. · F-0567 |
| Aug 27, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not give residents (and their representatives and the ombudsman, a state advocate for residents) proper advance notice before a transfer or discharge, including information about their right to appeal. · F-0623 |
| Aug 27, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required. · F-0657 |
| Aug 27, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide the help residents need with basic daily activities — like bathing, dressing, eating, and using the bathroom — for residents who cannot do these things on their own. · F-0677 |
| Aug 27, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide safe and appropriate respiratory care — such as oxygen, breathing treatments, or care for residents on breathing equipment — for residents who needed it. · F-0695 |
| Jan 11, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · from a complaint · F-0658 |
| Nov 8, 2023 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not maintain an effective pest control program to prevent or deal with mice, insects, or other pests. · from a complaint · F-0925 |
| Sep 21, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide the care needed to maintain or improve residents' movement and flexibility — such as range-of-motion exercises — leading to avoidable decline. · F-0688 |
| Sep 21, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · F-0812 |
| Sep 21, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not honor residents' right to make their own choices about their daily lives, such as when to wake up, what to eat, or how to spend their time. · F-0561 |
| Sep 21, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not immediately notify the resident, their doctor, and a family member when something significant happened — such as an injury, a decline in health, or a room change. Families and doctors are entitled to know right away. · F-0580 |
| Sep 21, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not create and follow a basic care plan covering a new resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of admission. The first days are when a new resident is most vulnerable. · F-0655 |
| Sep 21, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines. · F-0656 |
| Sep 21, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · F-0658 |
| Sep 21, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689 |
| Sep 21, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · F-0692 |
| Sep 21, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide safe and appropriate respiratory care — such as oxygen, breathing treatments, or care for residents on breathing equipment — for residents who needed it. · F-0695 |
| Sep 21, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not have enough nursing staff each day to meet every resident's needs, or did not have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift. Adequate staffing is one of the strongest predictors of good care. · F-0725 |
| Sep 21, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication. · F-0760 |
| Sep 21, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock. · F-0761 |
| Aug 17, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility used feeding tubes without a valid medical reason or the resident's agreement, or did not provide proper care to residents who have feeding tubes. · from a complaint · F-0693 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (10 → 5).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2023
All citations: 15
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 12
Serious citations (G–L): 1
2025
All citations: 6
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 1
Serious citations (G–L): 0
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 15 | 0 | F |
| 2024 | 12 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2025 | 6 | 0 | E |
| 2026 | 1 | 0 | D |
Counts reflect the current CMS public record (~3 inspection cycles plus complaint investigations); years with no surveys show no row. Inspection frequency varies, so compare severity as well as counts.
Fines and enforcement (last 3 years)
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
What these staffing numbers mean →
This facilityWashington averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 3.31
Washington average: 4.24
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.51
Washington average: 0.91
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.01
Washington average: 3.69
U.S. average: 3.50
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Measure | This facility | Washington avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 3.31 | 4.24 | 3.95 | bottom 5% in Washington; bottom 27% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.51 | 0.91 | 0.69 | bottom 5% in Washington; bottom 40% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.01 | 3.69 | 3.50 | bottom 12% in Washington; bottom 32% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.52 | 0.67 | 0.48 | bottom 32% in Washington; top 30% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 43.0 | 45.1 | 45.8 | top 49% in Washington; top 44% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 38.5 | 45.4 | 42.9 | top 39% in Washington; top 44% in the U.S. |
Hours are per resident per day for the most recent quarter of payroll data in this CMS release (2026-08-01) — the same quarter for every facility — case-mix adjusted by CMS so facilities caring for sicker residents can be compared fairly (same basis as the CMS staffing star). "Top X%" means better than most facilities: more staffing hours, or lower turnover. Raw (unadjusted) reported hours: total 4.02, RN 0.62, weekend 3.66.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.02 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 2/5.
Quality measures: assessments & claims
Note: CMS combines facility-reported resident assessments (MDS) with claims-based measures. These are different sources from on-site inspection findings. Read the measures alongside inspection and staffing records; a high QM rating does not establish that a home is safe.
Quality measures rating: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 4/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Avamere Rehabilitation at Ridgemont. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.
Calculate a stay from a quote you receive
Use a written private-pay quote. This worksheet adds only the amounts you enter; it does not calculate Medicare, Medicaid or insurance benefits.
Formula: (room rate + daily extras) × days + one-time charges. A 30-day scenario is not a calendar-month quote. Refundable deposits, rate changes and charges you omit are not automatically included. Entries are not saved or sent to our server.
Before you compare prices
- Request the room type, effective date and itemized daily rate in writing.
- Ask about therapy, medicines, supplies, care-level charges, deposits, refunds and annual increases.
- Confirm insurance or Medicaid eligibility and bed availability directly; certification alone does not guarantee either.
Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price
Who owns this facility
How to read ownership records →
Ownership records as published by CMS on 2026-08-01. CMS records when an owner joined but not when they left. Listed here and no longer involved? Tell us →
For profit - Limited Liability company
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dillon, Richard | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 05/22/2023 |
| Nair Facility Holdings LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 05/22/2023 |
| Nair LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 05/22/2023 |
| Nair Operations LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 05/22/2023 |
| Nair SNF Operations LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 05/22/2023 |
| Odermott, Ronald | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 05/22/2023 |
| Carlston, Scott | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/06/2024 |
| Kofstad, Mary | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/13/2024 |
| Kretchmar, Joshua | Individual | Contracted Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2023 |
| Simpson, Andrew | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2024 |
All 10 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
Other facilities in the same chain
CMS lists this facility under the chain Avamere — 27 facilities in the current records. Chain membership says who operates these homes. It says nothing about how any individual one of them was inspected; each has its own record.
- Avamere Rehabilitation of Burien — Burien, WA · overall 2/5
- Avamere Rehabilitation of Cascade Park — Vancouver, WA · overall 5/5
- Avamere Rehabilitation of Issaquah — Issaquah, WA · overall 2/5
- Avamere Rehabilitation of Shoreline — Seattle, WA · overall 2/5
- Avamere Transitional Care of Puget Sound — Tacoma, WA · overall 4/5
- Queen Anne Healthcare — Seattle, WA · overall 5/5
- Richmond Beach Rehab — Shoreline, WA · overall 4/5
- Avamere at Three Fountains — Medford, OR · overall 5/5
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 26 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
- "When abuse or theft is suspected, who do you notify, how fast, and how do you inform the family?"
- "What percentage of your residents are on antipsychotic or sedating medications, and how do you work to reduce that?"
- "What written notices do we get before any transfer or discharge, and what is your bed-hold policy?"
- "Can you show me how medications are stored and secured on the units, including controlled drugs?"
- "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
- "How do you care for residents with incontinence or catheters, and what do you do to prevent urinary tract infections?"
- "Can we tour the resident rooms, bathrooms, and common areas today, including areas not on the usual tour route?"
Also worth asking anywhere
- "Your weekend nurse staffing is reported below the Washington midpoint — how does the weekend schedule differ from a weekday?"
- "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
- "CMS reports 43% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"
Nearby facilities (12 closest of 32 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Life Care Center of Port Orchard | 0.0 mi | Port Orchard, WA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Washington Veteran Home-Retsil | 2.8 mi | Pt Orchard, WA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Port Washington Post Acute | 3.2 mi | Bremerton, WA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Belmont Terrace | 4.6 mi | Bremerton, WA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Bremerton Trails Post Acute | 4.8 mi | Bremerton, WA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | SFF |
| Bainbridge Island Health & Rehab Center | 10.0 mi | Bainbridge Island, WA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Northwoods Lodge | 10.9 mi | Silverdale, WA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Heron's Key | 11.2 mi | Gig Harbor, WA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Providence Mount St Vincent | 12.9 mi | Seattle, WA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Avamere Rehabilitation at Park West | 13.1 mi | Seattle, WA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Avamere Rehabilitation of Burien | 14.2 mi | Burien, WA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Martha and Mary Health Service | 15.2 mi | Poulsbo, WA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 |
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 505217.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).