Washington ›Renton

Cedar River Healthcare Center

Costs & paymentPlan a visit

17420 106th Pl SE, Renton, WA 98055 (opens Google Maps) · King County · (425) 362-6200· 60 certified beds · avg 55 residents/day · certified since Apr 25, 2019 · 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: PACS GROUP (274 facilities, chain avg rating 2.9★)

2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Apr 21, 2025
2
Serious findings on record
most recent Aug 13, 2024
$74,815
Fines, last 3 years
4.84
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

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: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · CMS overall rating: 3/5 · 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)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, widespread · Aug 13, 2024 · F-0678 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not provide basic life support, such as CPR, before emergency medical help arrived — care that's required when it matches the doctor's orders and the resident's own written wishes.

Why it matters: In a cardiac or breathing emergency, failure to start CPR promptly can be the difference between life and death.

Severity (L): Immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety was cited. The scope was widespread: a systemic or pervasive problem. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.

Corrected: Sep 13, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Aug 13, 2024 · F-0550 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not treat residents with dignity and respect, or did not honor their rights to make their own decisions and communicate freely. This is one of the most fundamental resident rights.

Why it matters: Being treated without dignity harms a resident's self-worth, mental health, and overall quality of life.

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: Sep 13, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

Inspection findings in the public record

Showing the latest 3 of 31 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.

  1. 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

  2. E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern

    The facility did not provide or arrange specialized rehabilitation services — such as physical, occupational, or speech therapy — for residents who needed them. · from a complaint F-0825

  3. F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread

    The facility's quality committee — the internal group responsible for finding and fixing care problems — did not have the required members or did not meet at least every three months. F-0868

View all 31 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.

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
Jun 25, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Apr 20, 2026E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not provide or arrange specialized rehabilitation services — such as physical, occupational, or speech therapy — for residents who needed them. · from a complaint · F-0825
Apr 21, 2025F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe facility's quality committee — the internal group responsible for finding and fixing care problems — did not have the required members or did not meet at least every three months. · F-0868
Apr 21, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential. · F-0583
Apr 21, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not treat residents with dignity and respect, or did not honor their rights to make their own decisions and communicate freely. This is one of the most fundamental resident rights. · F-0550
Apr 21, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Apr 21, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not properly complete the required screening (called PASARR) that identifies whether a person entering a nursing home has a mental illness or intellectual disability and needs specialized services. · F-0645
Apr 21, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Apr 21, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Apr 21, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Apr 21, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689
Apr 21, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · F-0692
Apr 21, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · F-0693
Apr 21, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide the social services residents need — such as counseling, help with adjustment, or connecting to outside resources — to achieve the best possible quality of life. · F-0745
Aug 13, 2024▲ L · Immediate jeopardy, widespreadThe facility did not provide basic life support, such as CPR, before emergency medical help arrived — care that's required when it matches the doctor's orders and the resident's own written wishes. · from a complaint · F-0678
Aug 13, 2024▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe facility did not treat residents with dignity and respect, or did not honor their rights to make their own decisions and communicate freely. This is one of the most fundamental resident rights. · from a complaint · F-0550
Aug 13, 2024F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident. · from a complaint · F-0726
Aug 13, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Aug 13, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not respond appropriately to alleged violations, such as reports of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Facilities must investigate every allegation and protect residents while they do. · from a complaint · F-0610
Aug 13, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving. · from a complaint · F-0686
Mar 22, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not properly complete the required screening (called PASARR) that identifies whether a person entering a nursing home has a mental illness or intellectual disability and needs specialized services. · F-0645
Mar 22, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Mar 22, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · F-0842
Mar 22, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not honor residents' rights to request, refuse, or stop treatment, to decline participation in medical research, or to make an advance directive — a written statement of their wishes for future medical care. · F-0578
Mar 22, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not reassess a resident after a significant change in their condition, such as a sudden decline in health. A full new assessment is required when a resident's condition changes in a major way. · F-0637
Mar 22, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not enter each resident's assessment information into the required format and send it to the state within 7 days of completing the assessment, as the rules require. · F-0640
Mar 22, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. · F-0641
Mar 22, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Feb 24, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Feb 24, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving. · F-0686
Feb 24, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (8 → 12).

Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2023
All citations: 3
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 14
Serious citations (G–L): 2
2025
All citations: 12
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 2
Serious citations (G–L): 0

All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202330D
2024142L ▲
2025120F
202620E

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)

How to file a complaint about care →

1 fine totaling $74,815.

Every penalty CMS publishes for this facility in the 3-year window is listed —none excluded. The count and the dollar total come from two different CMS datasets and agree for this facility. Penalties older than the window are dropped by CMS before publication, not by us.

DateTypeAmount / length
Aug 13, 2024Fine$74,815

Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)

What these staffing numbers mean →

Nurse time, in contextAdjusted hours per resident per day · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
This facilityWashington averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 4.84
Washington average: 4.24
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 1.06
Washington average: 0.91
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 4.02
Washington average: 3.69
U.S. average: 3.50

All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.

MeasureThis facilityWashington avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)4.844.243.95top 12% in Washington; top 16% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours1.060.910.69top 24% in Washington; top 13% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing4.023.693.50top 20% in Washington; top 22% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.620.670.48bottom 46% in Washington; top 22% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)39.345.145.8top 35% in Washington; top 35% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)38.545.442.9top 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 5.18, RN 1.13, weekend 4.30.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (5.18 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 5/5.

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: 4/5 · short-stay residents: 5/5

Costs & payment

Price evidence · separate from quality

No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Cedar River Healthcare Center. 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 - Corporation

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Apt, FrederickIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE01/10/2025
Branch Banking & Trust CompanyOrganization5% or Greater Security InterestNOT APPLICABLE01/10/2025
Brucell, ZoeeIndividualManaging Control - Governing BodyNOT APPLICABLE04/07/2025
Brucell, ZoeeIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE04/07/2025
Brucell, ZoeeIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE04/10/2025
James, BethIndividualManaging Control - Governing BodyNOT APPLICABLE01/10/2025
Jergensen, JoshuaIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE01/10/2025
Malone, TyroneIndividualManaging Control - Governing BodyNOT APPLICABLE01/10/2025
Mercado, NerizaIndividualManaging Control - Governing BodyNOT APPLICABLE01/10/2025
Mercado, NerizaIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/10/2025
Mercado, NerizaIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/10/2025
Mitchell, JohnIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE01/10/2025
Providence Administrative Consulting Services INCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/22/2025
Rosal, PatrickIndividualManaging Control - Governing BodyNOT APPLICABLE01/10/2025
Sichel, TerraIndividualManaging Control - Governing BodyNOT APPLICABLE01/10/2025
Truist BankOrganization5% or Greater Security InterestNOT APPLICABLE01/10/2025

All 16 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 Pacs Group — 274 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.

Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 273 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.

Questions to ask on your visit

Full visit checklist →

Print visit checklist

Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.

  • "Are staff on every shift trained and certified in CPR, and how do they know each resident's resuscitation wishes?"
  • "Can you give me examples of how your staff protect residents' dignity in everyday care, like bathing and dressing?"
  • "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
  • "How are therapy services provided here, and how quickly does therapy start after a doctor orders it?"
  • "How does your quality committee work, and can you share an example of a problem it identified and fixed?"
  • "How do you protect residents' privacy, both in their medical records and in day-to-day care?"
  • "If you ever planned to discharge or transfer my family member, how much written notice would we receive and how could we appeal?"
  • "How do you screen new residents for mental health and disability-related needs, and how do you provide the specialized services they require?"

Also worth asking anywhere

  • "What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
  • "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
  • "CMS reports 39% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
  • "The ownership record on file lists 16 owning or managing parties — who makes the decisions about staffing levels?"
  • "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"

Nearby facilities (12 closest of 51 within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Valley View Skilled Nursing and Rehabilitation0.7 miRenton, WA★★★☆☆3/5
Renton Health & Rehabilitation2.6 miRenton, WA★★☆☆☆2/5
Benson Heights Rehabilitation Center3.1 miKent, WA★★★☆☆2/5
Puget Sound Transitional Care5.7 miDes Moines, WA★★☆☆☆2/5
Wesley Homes Des Moines Health Center6.2 miDes Moines, WA★★★★★4/5
Judson Park Health Center6.9 miDes Moines, WA★★★★★3/5
Caroline Kline Galland Home6.9 miSeattle, WA★★★☆☆2/5
Avamere Rehabilitation of Burien7.5 miBurien, WA★★☆☆☆2/5
North Auburn Care8.0 miAuburn, WA★★☆☆☆1/5
Kin on Health Care Center8.3 miSeattle, WA★★☆☆☆2/5
Briarwood at Timber Ridge8.4 miIssaquah, WA★★★★★4/5
Lea Hill Rehabilitation and Care Center9.1 miAuburn, WA★★★★☆3/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

Other facilities in the same county

CMS records place this facility in King, WA — 47 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.

Listed by facility name — not a ranking. Homes already in the table above are not repeated here.

All facilities in Renton →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 505532.

Your research

Viewed & saved homes

Kept in this browser tab for this session. Choose to remember them only on a device you trust. Opening a record or comparison sends its usual page request.

Selected for comparison

Recently viewed

Prices entered in a cost worksheet stay on that page and are not saved. Privacy details