Washington ›Ephrata

Columbia Basin Hospital

200 Nat Washington Way, Ephrata, WA 98823 · Grant County · 12 certified beds · avg 12 residents/day · certified since Aug 11, 1975

4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
6.23
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)

Health inspection rating: ★★★★☆4/5 · CMS overall rating: 3/5

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 self-reported quality measures.

All citations in the current public record (31)

CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed.

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
Apr 24, 2026F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe 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.
Apr 24, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not give residents proper notice about what Medicare or Medicaid covers, or about charges the resident might owe for services that aren't covered.
Apr 24, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs.
Apr 24, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Apr 24, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Apr 24, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide care that took into account residents' past trauma or their cultural backgrounds. Care is supposed to be sensitive to what residents have lived through and where they come from.
Apr 24, 2026C · Minimal risk, facility-wideThe facility did not post its nurse staffing information every day. Nursing homes must publicly display how many nurses and aides are on duty each day.
Dec 3, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Mar 14, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Mar 14, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors.
Mar 14, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not make sure residents were fully informed about their own health, care, and treatments in a way they could understand.
Mar 14, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility used physical restraints — devices that limit a resident's movement — when they weren't needed for medical treatment.
Mar 14, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Mar 14, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not give the resident or their representative written notice of how long it would hold the resident's bed during a hospital stay or approved leave.
Mar 14, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Mar 14, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not designate a qualified infection preventionist — a trained person responsible for running the infection prevention and control program.
Feb 2, 2024F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not conduct and document a facility-wide assessment of what staff, supplies, and resources it needs to care for its residents properly — during everyday operations, nights, weekends, and emergencies.
Feb 2, 2024F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe 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.
Feb 2, 2024F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe 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.
Feb 2, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Feb 2, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident.
Feb 2, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Feb 2, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. These written safeguards are the foundation of resident protection.
Feb 2, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation.
Feb 2, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Feb 2, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Feb 2, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide care that took into account residents' past trauma or their cultural backgrounds. Care is supposed to be sensitive to what residents have lived through and where they come from.
Feb 2, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not serve meals and snacks at times that fit residents' needs, preferences, and requests, or did not offer nourishing alternatives for residents who want to eat outside scheduled meal times.
Feb 2, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly.
Feb 2, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not run an ongoing quality assurance committee that reviews care problems and creates plans to fix them.
Feb 2, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (8 → 7).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
2024150F
202590E
202670F

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)

No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.

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

MeasureThis facilityWashington avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)6.234.243.95top 4% in Washington; top 3% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours1.120.910.69top 20% in Washington; top 12% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing6.153.693.50top 3% in Washington; top 2% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.900.670.48top 17% in Washington; top 8% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)31.345.145.8top 14% in Washington; top 17% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)0.045.442.9—

Hours are per resident per day, 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 5.22, RN 0.94, weekend 5.15. Staffing rating: 1/5.

Self-reported quality measures

Note: these ratings are based on data the facility reports about itself to CMS. They are not independently verified by inspectors, and can look better than inspection findings. Give more weight to the inspection results above.

Quality measures rating: 3/5 · long-stay residents: 3/5 · short-stay residents: —/5

Who owns this facility

Government - County

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Ownership Data Not Available

Questions to ask on your visit

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

Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
McKay Healthcare & Rehab Ctr5.5 miSoap Lake, WA★★★★☆4/5
Lake Ridge Center18.4 miMoses Lake, WA★★☆☆☆2/5abuse
Columbia Crest Center19.0 miMoses Lake, WA★★☆☆☆1/5abuse

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Ephrata →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 50A181.