How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Mountain View Rehabilitation and Care Center
5925 47th Avenue NE, Marysville, WA 98270 (opens Google Maps) · Snohomish County · (360) 659-1259· 82 certified beds · avg 84 residents/day · certified since Jan 1, 1992 · 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: THE ENSIGN GROUP (342 facilities, chain avg rating 3.2★)
4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Jan 12, 2026
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
3.71
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.
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 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
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
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. F-0689
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Jan 12, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · from a complaint · F-0550 |
| Jan 12, 2026 | 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 |
| Jan 12, 2026 | 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 |
| Jan 12, 2026 | 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 |
| Jan 12, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · from a complaint · F-0838 |
| Jan 12, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · F-0842 |
| May 30, 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 |
| Jan 9, 2025 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0584 |
| Jan 9, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not fully assess residents on time — a complete assessment of health, abilities, and needs is required when a resident is first admitted and at least once every 12 months after that. · F-0636 |
| Jan 9, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Jan 9, 2025 | 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 |
| Jan 9, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Jan 9, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 |
| Jan 9, 2025 | 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 |
| Jan 9, 2025 | 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 |
| Jan 9, 2025 | 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 |
| Jan 9, 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 |
| Jan 9, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0732 |
| Jan 9, 2025 | 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 |
| Jan 9, 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 |
| Jan 9, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide or arrange dental services for its residents. Nursing homes are responsible for making sure residents can get dental care. · F-0791 |
| Jan 9, 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 |
| Nov 1, 2024 | 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 |
| Nov 1, 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. · from a complaint · F-0684 |
| May 3, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| May 3, 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 22, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Nov 22, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not educate residents and staff about COVID-19 vaccination, offer the vaccine to those eligible after that education, or properly document everyone's vaccination status. · F-0887 |
| Nov 22, 2023 | 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 |
| Nov 22, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not coordinate resident assessments with the state's pre-admission screening program for mental illness and intellectual disabilities, or failed to refer residents for the special services they need. · F-0644 |
| Nov 22, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not properly plan a resident's discharge to meet the resident's goals and needs after leaving. · F-0660 |
| Nov 22, 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 |
| Nov 22, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Nov 22, 2023 | 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. · F-0690 |
| Nov 22, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Nov 22, 2023 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (15 → 6).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2023
All citations: 10
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 4
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 16
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 6
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 | 10 | 0 | E |
| 2024 | 4 | 0 | E |
| 2025 | 16 | 0 | E |
| 2026 | 6 | 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: 3.71
Washington average: 4.24
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.95
Washington average: 0.91
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.31
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) | 3.71 | 4.24 | 3.95 | bottom 27% in Washington; bottom 47% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.95 | 0.91 | 0.69 | top 35% in Washington; top 18% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.31 | 3.69 | 3.50 | bottom 35% in Washington; bottom 48% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.69 | 0.67 | 0.48 | top 43% in Washington; top 16% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 28.7 | 45.1 | 45.8 | top 10% in Washington; top 12% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 40.0 | 45.4 | 42.9 | top 42% in Washington; top 46% 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 3.76, RN 0.96, weekend 3.35.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.76 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: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 3/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Mountain View Rehabilitation and Care 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 / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pennant Healthcare LLC | Organization | Direct Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/01/2013 |
| Bhumkar, Nishita | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/01/2022 |
| Bhumkar, Nishita | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/01/2022 |
| Bhumkar, Nishita | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/10/2025 |
| Bodily, Brandon | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/01/2013 |
| Bodily, Brandon | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/01/2013 |
| Bodily, Brandon | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/10/2025 |
| Burnam, Soon | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/17/2013 |
| Burnam, Soon | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/10/2025 |
| Caretrust GP LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/01/2013 |
| Caretrust Reit INC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/01/2013 |
| Ctr Partnership LP | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/01/2013 |
| Ensign Services INC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/01/2013 |
| Farnsworth, Stephen | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2024 |
| Holmes, Nathan | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2025 |
| Keetch, Chad | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2011 |
| Port, Barry | Individual | Individual Is an Owner, Partner or Trustee of Any ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/10/2025 |
| Sato, Ami | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/09/2024 |
| Tulalip Bay Health Holdings LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/01/2013 |
All 19 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 The Ensign Group — 342 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.
- Olympia Transitional Care and Rehabilitation — Olympia, WA · overall 3/5
- Pacific Care and Rehabilitation — Hoquiam, WA · overall 5/5
- Park Manor Rehabilitation Ctr — Walla Walla, WA · overall 5/5
- Puget Sound Transitional Care — Des Moines, WA · overall 2/5
- Rainier Rehabilitation — Puyallup, WA · overall 5/5
- Redmond Care and Rehabilitation Center — Redmond, WA · overall 5/5
- Shoreline Health and Rehabilitation — Seattle, WA · overall 5/5
- South Hill Rehabilitation and Care Center — Spokane, WA · overall 5/5
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 341 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.
- "Can you give me examples of how your staff protect residents' dignity in everyday care, like bathing and dressing?"
- "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
- "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
- "Can you show me how medications are stored and secured on the units, including controlled drugs?"
- "How do you decide you have enough staff and resources for your resident population, including nights and weekends?"
- "How do you keep residents' medical records accurate, complete, and secure?"
- "If my family member falls or their condition changes, exactly when and how will I be notified?"
- "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 29% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "The ownership record on file lists 19 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 16 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Marysville Care Center | 0.8 mi | Marysville, WA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Bethany at Pacific | 4.5 mi | Everett, WA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Everett Transitional Care Services | 5.6 mi | Everett, WA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| View Ridge Care Center | 7.4 mi | Everett, WA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Madison Post Acute | 8.0 mi | Everett, WA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Snohomish Health and Rehabilitation of Cascadia | 9.4 mi | Snohomish, WA | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Arlington Health and Rehabilitation | 9.6 mi | Arlington, WA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Bethany at Silver Lake | 11.1 mi | Everett, WA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Everett Center | 11.4 mi | Everett, WA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Regency Care Center at Monroe | 16.1 mi | Monroe, WA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Alderwood Post Acute & Rehabilitation | 16.1 mi | Lynnwood, WA | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Josephine Caring Community | 16.3 mi | Stanwood, WA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in Snohomish, WA — 17 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Pine Ridge Post Acute — Edmonds, WA · overall 4/5
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 505407.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).