How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Lacamas Creek Post Acute
740 NE Dallas Street, Camas, WA 98607 (opens Google Maps) · Clark County · (360) 834-5055· 83 certified beds · avg 76 residents/day · certified since Apr 1, 1983 · 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★)
5/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Jul 25, 2025
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.88
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: ★★★★★5/5 · CMS overall rating: 5/5 · 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.
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 36 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 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. · from a complaint F-0699
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. · from a complaint F-0580
View all 36 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Dec 22, 2025 | 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 |
| Dec 22, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · from a complaint · F-0699 |
| Nov 14, 2025 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0580 |
| Nov 14, 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. · from a complaint · F-0684 |
| Jul 25, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 |
| Jul 25, 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 |
| Jul 25, 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 |
| Sep 27, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. · F-0641 |
| Sep 27, 2024 | 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 27, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not observe each nurse aide's job performance or provide regular training as required. · F-0730 |
| Sep 27, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not properly inform residents or their representatives about arbitration agreements — contracts that give up the right to sue in court — including their right to refuse to sign. · F-0847 |
| Sep 27, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not regularly inspect bed frames, mattresses, and bed rails for safety, or the rails and mattresses were not attached safely to the frames. · F-0909 |
| Sep 27, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not make sure its nurse aides had the skills needed to care for residents, including training in dementia care and abuse prevention. · F-0947 |
| Apr 29, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0760 |
| Oct 31, 2023 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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 |
| Oct 31, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Oct 31, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The 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. · F-0625 |
| Oct 31, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Oct 31, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide activities that meet residents' needs and interests. Nursing homes must offer meaningful activity programs, not just leave residents idle. · F-0679 |
| Oct 31, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility's activities program was not run by a qualified professional. The person directing recreation and social activities must have proper training or credentials. · F-0680 |
| Oct 31, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Oct 31, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not keep residents' medications free from unnecessary drugs. Residents should only take medicines they truly need, at the right dose, for a clear reason. · F-0757 |
| Oct 31, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Oct 31, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · from a complaint · F-0880 |
| Oct 31, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584 |
| Oct 31, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 |
| Oct 31, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 |
| Oct 31, 2023 | 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 |
| Oct 31, 2023 | 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 |
| Oct 31, 2023 | 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 |
| Oct 31, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 |
| Oct 31, 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 |
| Oct 31, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide necessary behavioral health care and services — support for residents' mental and emotional wellbeing, including conditions like depression and anxiety. · F-0740 |
| Oct 31, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not try to gradually reduce doses of mood- and mind-altering medications or use non-drug approaches first, as required, or used 'as needed' psychiatric drugs without proper limits. · F-0758 |
| Oct 31, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations. · F-0883 |
| Sep 14, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · from a complaint · F-0677 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (6 → 3).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2023
All citations: 22
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 7
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 7
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 | 22 | 0 | F |
| 2024 | 7 | 0 | D |
| 2025 | 7 | 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: 4.88
Washington average: 4.24
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.69
Washington average: 0.91
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 4.28
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) | 4.88 | 4.24 | 3.95 | top 11% in Washington; top 15% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.69 | 0.91 | 0.69 | bottom 25% in Washington; top 38% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 4.28 | 3.69 | 3.50 | top 9% in Washington; top 16% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.42 | 0.67 | 0.48 | bottom 13% in Washington; top 45% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 53.8 | 45.1 | 45.8 | bottom 27% in Washington; bottom 28% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 25.0 | 45.4 | 42.9 | top 13% in Washington; top 20% 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 4.63, RN 0.65, weekend 4.07.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.63 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 4/5.
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: 4/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Lacamas Creek Post Acute. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pacs Group, INC. | Organization | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/14/2024 |
| Pacs Holdings, LLC | Organization | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/14/2024 |
| Providence Group NH, LLC | Organization | Direct Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/14/2024 |
| Apt, Frederick | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/10/2024 |
| Apt, Frederick | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/14/2024 |
| Jergensen, Joshua | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/10/2024 |
| Jergensen, Joshua | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/14/2024 |
| Kalinowski, Andrea | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/01/2024 |
| Kalinowski, Andrea | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/01/2024 |
| Mitchell, John | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/10/2024 |
| Mitchell, John | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/14/2024 |
| Orlovskaya, Olga | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/01/2024 |
| Orlovskaya, Olga | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/01/2024 |
| Providence Administrative Consulting Services INC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/01/2024 |
| Truist Bank | Organization | 5% or Greater Security Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/01/2024 |
| Van Auken, Matthew | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/01/2024 |
| Van Auken, Matthew | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/01/2024 |
All 17 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.
- Linden Post Acute — Toppenish, WA · overall 4/5
- Mountain View Post Acute — Ellensburg, WA · overall 2/5abuse
- Pine Ridge Post Acute — Edmonds, WA · overall 4/5
- Richland Post Acute — Richland, WA · overall 5/5
- South Creek Post Acute — Centralia, WA · overall 4/5
- Sullivan Park Care Center — Spokane, WA · overall 1/5
- Sunnyside Healthcare Center — Sunnyside, WA · overall 3/5
- Centennial Post Acute — Anchorage, AK · overall 1/5
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
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "When abuse or theft is suspected, who do you notify, how fast, and how do you inform the family?"
- "How do you learn about each resident's background and history, and how does that shape their care?"
- "If my family member falls or their condition changes, exactly when and how will I be notified?"
- "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
- "How do you record and honor each resident's treatment wishes and advance directives, and how do staff know about them?"
- "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
- "Who completes resident assessments here, and how do you check them for accuracy?"
- "How often do you evaluate your nurse aides and what ongoing training do they receive?"
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 54% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "The ownership record on file lists 17 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 49 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Village Manor of Cascadia | 3.5 mi | Wood Village, OR | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Marquis Centennial Post Acute Rehab | 5.5 mi | Portland, OR | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Avamere Rehabilitation of Cascade Park | 5.6 mi | Vancouver, WA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Fairlawn Health and Rehabilitation of Cascadia | 5.8 mi | Gresham, OR | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Gresham Post Acute Care and Rehabilitation | 6.1 mi | Gresham, OR | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Regency Gresham Nursing & Rehabilitation Center | 7.2 mi | Gresham, OR | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Village Health Care | 7.4 mi | Gresham, OR | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Menlo Park Post Acute | 7.6 mi | Portland, OR | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Rose City Nursing and Rehabilitation | 7.8 mi | Portland, OR | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Portland Health and Rehabilitation | 7.9 mi | Portland, OR | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Evergreen Post Acute | 8.2 mi | Portland, OR | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Glisan Post Acute | 8.4 mi | Portland, OR | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in Clark, WA — 8 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Salmon Creek Post Acute & Rehabilitation — Vancouver, WA · overall 3/5
- The Oaks at Timberline — Vancouver, WA · overall 5/5
- Vancouver Specialty and Rehab Care — Vancouver, WA · overall 4/5
- Bridge Crest Post Acute — Vancouver, WA · overall 2/5
- Brookfield Health and Rehab of Cascadia — Battle Ground, WA · overall 3/5
- Hudson Bay Health and Rehabilitation — Vancouver, WA · overall 5/5
Listed by facility name — not a ranking. Homes already in the table above are not repeated here.
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 505273.