How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Lakeland Village Nursing Facility
State Highway 902 & Salnave Road, Medical Lake, WA 99022 (opens Google Maps) · Spokane County · (509) 299-1800· 93 certified beds · avg 74 residents/day · certified since May 23, 1994 · Medicaid only — not Medicare certified
Certified for Medicaid only. It cannot bill Medicare, so a short post-hospital rehabilitation stay would not be covered the usual way here. Who pays for nursing home care →
Abuse citation flag (CMS)
The abuse flag means inspectors cited this facility for abuse that caused harm to a resident within the past year, or potential for harm in each of the last two years. Source: CMS.
2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Oct 27, 2025
1
Serious findings on record
most recent Sep 27, 2024
$0
Fines, last 3 years
11.07
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: ★★☆☆☆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, pattern · Sep 27, 2024 · F-0812
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.
▲ Immediate jeopardy, pattern · Sep 27, 2024 · F-0812
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.
Why it matters: Unsafe food handling is one of the most common causes of food poisoning, which can be dangerous for frail residents.
Severity (K): Immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety was cited. The scope was a pattern: more than a limited occurrence, without being widespread. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.
Corrected: Oct 25, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 26 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint F-0600
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint F-0689
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
View all 26 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 |
|---|---|---|
| May 4, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint · F-0600 |
| Dec 15, 2025 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0689 |
| Oct 27, 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 |
| Oct 27, 2025 | 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 27, 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 |
| Oct 27, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. · F-0921 |
| Jul 7, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint · F-0600 |
| Jul 7, 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 |
| Mar 14, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint · F-0600 |
| Jan 23, 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 |
| Sep 27, 2024 | ▲ K · Immediate jeopardy, 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 27, 2024 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not have enough support staff to safely and effectively run its food and nutrition service. · F-0802 |
| Sep 27, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not make sure residents were fully informed about their own health, care, and treatments in a way they could understand. · F-0552 |
| Sep 27, 2024 | 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 |
| Sep 27, 2024 | 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 |
| Sep 11, 2024 | 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 11, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 |
| Jun 20, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint · F-0600 |
| Jun 20, 2024 | 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 |
| Jun 20, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 |
| Feb 22, 2024 | 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 |
| Mar 16, 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 |
| Mar 16, 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 |
| Mar 16, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility's menus did not meet residents' nutritional needs, or were not prepared in advance, followed as written, kept up to date, or reviewed by a dietician. · F-0803 |
| Mar 16, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep all essential equipment working safely — things like heating and cooling systems, kitchen equipment, and medical devices. · F-0908 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (6 → 4).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2023
All citations: 4
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 12
Serious citations (G–L): 1
2025
All citations: 9
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 | 4 | 0 | E |
| 2024 | 12 | 1 | K ▲ |
| 2025 | 9 | 0 | D |
| 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: 11.07
Washington average: 4.24
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 2.15
Washington average: 0.91
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 10.24
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) | 11.07 | 4.24 | 3.95 | top 1% in Washington; top 1% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 2.15 | 0.91 | 0.69 | top 1% in Washington; top 1% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 10.24 | 3.69 | 3.50 | top 1% in Washington; top 1% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 1.75 | 0.67 | 0.48 | top 1% in Washington; top 1% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 32.6 | 45.1 | 45.8 | top 17% in Washington; top 19% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 26.7 | 45.4 | 42.9 | top 16% in Washington; top 24% 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 11.12, RN 2.17, weekend 10.29.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (11.12 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
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Lakeland Village Nursing Facility. 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 →
Government - State
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership Data Not Available |
All 1 owning or managing party CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
- "Tell me about this abuse or neglect citation — what happened, and what specific changes did you make afterward?"
- "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
- "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
- "How many residents here use oxygen or breathing equipment, and who checks that equipment each shift?"
- "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
- "Can we tour the whole building today, including resident bathrooms and common areas, not just the lobby?"
- "When abuse or theft is suspected, who do you notify, how fast, and how do you inform the family?"
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 33% 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 (within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cheney Care Center | 10.1 mi | Cheney, WA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Emerson Health & Rehabilitation | 13.7 mi | Spokane, WA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| South Hill Rehabilitation and Care Center | 14.1 mi | Spokane, WA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Spokane Veterans Home | 14.2 mi | Spokane, WA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Rockwood South Hill | 14.7 mi | Spokane, WA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Spokane Health & Rehabilitation | 15.3 mi | Spokane, WA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | SFF |
| Spokane Falls Care | 15.4 mi | Spokane, WA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Royal Park Health and Rehabilitation | 16.2 mi | Spokane, WA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Alderwood Manor | 16.4 mi | Spokane, WA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Avalon Care Center at Northpointe | 17.0 mi | Spokane, WA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Regency at Northpointe | 17.3 mi | Spokane, WA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in Spokane, WA — 16 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Spokane Valley Health and Rehabilitation of Cascad — Spokane Valley, WA · overall 1/5
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 50A263.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).