Washington ›Silverdale

Northwoods Lodge

Costs & paymentPlan a visit

2321 Schold Place Northwest, Silverdale, WA 98383 (opens Google Maps) · Kitsap County · (360) 698-3930· 57 certified beds · avg 53 residents/day · certified since Feb 1, 1994 · 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: SANTE (5 facilities, chain avg rating 4.4★)

4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Mar 16, 2026
3
Serious findings on record
most recent Jan 13, 2025
$51,942
Fines, last 3 years
5.12
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: ★★★★☆4/5 · 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.

Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jan 13, 2025 · F-0686

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.

Why it matters: Bedsores are painful, can become deeply infected, and in serious cases can be life-threatening.

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: Feb 18, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Sep 27, 2024 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.

Why it matters: This is one of the most common citations and directly relates to falls and injuries, which can be devastating for older adults.

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: Oct 28, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Mar 28, 2024 · F-0684 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.

Why it matters: Care that strays from doctor's orders or ignores the resident's wishes can lead to declining health and avoidable harm.

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: Apr 30, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

Inspection findings in the public record

Showing the latest 3 of 36 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.

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

    The facility did not provide required paperwork or notices about a resident's needs, their right to appeal a transfer or discharge, or the facility's bed-hold policy (how long a bed is saved during a hospital stay). F-0628

  2. 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

  3. D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated

    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

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.

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
Mar 16, 2026E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not provide required paperwork or notices about a resident's needs, their right to appeal a transfer or discharge, or the facility's bed-hold policy (how long a bed is saved during a hospital stay). · F-0628
Mar 16, 2026E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Mar 16, 2026D · 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
Mar 16, 2026D · 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
Mar 16, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · F-0684
Mar 16, 2026D · 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
Mar 16, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Mar 16, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · F-0842
Jun 25, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Jan 13, 2025▲ G · Actual 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
Jan 13, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not safely and appropriately administer IV fluids (fluids given through a vein) for residents who needed them. · F-0694
Jan 13, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility used bed rails without first trying safer alternatives, or without assessing the resident's safety risk, discussing the risks and benefits with the resident or family, getting consent, and installing the rails correctly. · F-0700
Jan 13, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Jan 13, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Jan 13, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not have a working program to monitor how antibiotics are used. Tracking antibiotic use helps make sure these drugs are given only when needed and remain effective. · F-0881
Jan 13, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not let a resident help develop and carry out their own plan of care — the written roadmap of the services and support they'll receive, built around their personal goals and preferences. · F-0553
Jan 13, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not honor residents' right to make their own choices about their daily lives, such as when to wake up, what to eat, or how to spend their time. · F-0561
Jan 13, 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
Jan 13, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Jan 13, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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 13, 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
Jan 13, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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 13, 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
Jan 13, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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 13, 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
Jan 13, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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 13, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide food that accounts for each resident's allergies, intolerances, and personal preferences, or did not offer appealing alternatives. · F-0806
Sep 27, 2024▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe 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
Sep 27, 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
Mar 28, 2024▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe 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
Jan 12, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not safely and appropriately administer IV fluids (fluids given through a vein) for residents who needed them. · F-0694
Jan 12, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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 12, 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
Jan 12, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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 12, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (18 → 8).

Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2023
All citations: 1
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 8
Serious citations (G–L): 2
2025
All citations: 19
Serious citations (G–L): 1
2026
All citations: 8
Serious citations (G–L): 0

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

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202310D
202482G ▲
2025191G ▲
202680E

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 $51,942.

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
Jan 13, 2025Fine$51,942

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: 5.12
Washington average: 4.24
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 1.15
Washington average: 0.91
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 4.17
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)5.124.243.95top 9% in Washington; top 11% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours1.150.910.69top 19% in Washington; top 11% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing4.173.693.50top 14% in Washington; top 19% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.640.670.48top 49% in Washington; top 20% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)40.045.145.8top 37% in Washington; top 36% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)50.045.442.9bottom 40% in Washington; bottom 39% 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 5.48, RN 1.23, weekend 4.46.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (5.48 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: —/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 Northwoods Lodge. 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 / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Halverson, MelissaIndividual5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest—04/02/2018
Hansen, CharlesIndividual5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest—04/02/2012
Munch Tooke, LLCOrganization5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest—04/02/2012
Munch, MichaelIndividual5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest—04/02/2012
Sante Holdings LLCOrganization5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest—04/02/2012
SP Re Silverdale LLCOrganization5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest—04/02/2012
SP Silverdale LLCOrganization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest100%04/02/2012
Tooke, ArthurIndividual5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest—04/02/2012
Hansen, CharlesIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE04/02/2012
Munch, MichaelIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE04/02/2012
Schaefer, JacobIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE04/02/2012

All 11 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 Sante — 5 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.

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.

  • "How do you prevent bedsores for residents who can't move themselves, and how often are at-risk residents repositioned?"
  • "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?"
  • "What written notices do we get before any transfer or discharge, and what is your bed-hold policy?"
  • "How do you handle COVID-19 vaccination for residents and staff, and what happens during an outbreak?"
  • "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
  • "How many aides are on each shift, and how do you make sure every resident gets timely help with bathing, dressing, and meals?"
  • "How often is each resident's medication list reviewed, and who decides when a drug can be reduced or stopped?"

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 40% 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 (12 closest of 29 within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Martha and Mary Health Service4.5 miPoulsbo, WA★★★★☆3/5
Bremerton Trails Post Acute6.6 miBremerton, WA★☆☆☆☆1/5SFF
Belmont Terrace6.7 miBremerton, WA★★★☆☆2/5
Port Washington Post Acute7.7 miBremerton, WA★☆☆☆☆1/5
Bainbridge Island Health & Rehab Center8.0 miBainbridge Island, WA★★★★★5/5
Washington Veteran Home-Retsil9.4 miPt Orchard, WA★★★★☆3/5
Life Care Center of Port Orchard10.9 miPort Orchard, WA★★★★★4/5
Avamere Rehabilitation at Ridgemont10.9 miPort Orchard, WA★★★★☆4/5
Ballard Center14.5 miSeattle, WA★★☆☆☆2/5
Avamere Rehabilitation at Park West14.8 miSeattle, WA★★☆☆☆2/5
The Broadview Center15.3 miSeattle, WA★★☆☆☆1/5
Columbia Lutheran Home15.4 miSeattle, WA★★★★☆3/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Silverdale →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 505484.

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