Regency Omak
901 Shumway Rd, Omak, WA 98841 · Okanogan County · 56 certified beds · avg 42 residents/day · certified since Mar 28, 1986
Part of chain: REGENCY PACIFIC MANAGEMENT (27 facilities, chain avg rating 3.9★)
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
Health inspection rating: ★★★★★5/5 · CMS overall rating: 5/5
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.
Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)
▲ Actual harm, one-off · Jun 1, 2023 · 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): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.
Corrected: Jun 22, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
All citations in the current public record (19)
CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed.
| Date | Severity | What the facility was cited for |
|---|---|---|
| Jan 24, 2026 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | 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. |
| Jan 24, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. |
| Mar 3, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. · from a complaint |
| Oct 11, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not make sure residents were fully informed about their own health, care, and treatments in a way they could understand. |
| Oct 11, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility transferred or discharged a resident without a valid reason, or failed to provide the required documentation and information when moving a resident out. |
| Oct 11, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Oct 11, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Oct 11, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Oct 11, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Oct 11, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. |
| Aug 6, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident. · from a complaint |
| Jun 12, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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 |
| Feb 27, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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 |
| Feb 27, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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 |
| Jun 1, 2023 | ▲ G · Actual harm, one-off | 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. |
| Jun 1, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Jun 1, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide necessary behavioral health care and services — support for residents' mental and emotional wellbeing, including conditions like depression and anxiety. |
| Jun 1, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Jun 1, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (7 → 2).
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 5 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2024 | 11 | 0 | D |
| 2025 | 1 | 0 | D |
| 2026 | 2 | 0 | F |
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)
| Measure | This facility | Washington avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 4.56 | 4.24 | 3.95 | top 23% in Washington; top 21% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.98 | 0.91 | 0.69 | top 31% in Washington; top 16% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.92 | 3.69 | 3.50 | top 25% in Washington; top 25% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.62 | 0.67 | 0.48 | bottom 46% in Washington; top 22% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 39.1 | 45.1 | 45.8 | top 34% in Washington; top 34% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 28.6 | 45.4 | 42.9 | top 18% in Washington; top 26% in the U.S. |
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 4.04, RN 0.87, weekend 3.47. Staffing rating: 5/5.
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: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 3/5 · short-stay residents: 5/5
Who owns this facility
For profit - Corporation
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beddoe, Marvin | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2014 |
| Regency Pacific Management LLC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2014 |
Questions to ask on your visit
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 did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
- "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
- "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
- "How do you explain health changes and treatment options to residents and their families?"
- "Under what circumstances would you discharge or transfer a resident, and what notice and appeal rights would we have?"
- "If my family member goes to the hospital, how long will you hold their bed, and will we get that in writing?"
- "How do you screen new residents for mental health and disability-related needs, and how do you provide the specialized services they require?"
- "What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
- "Can I see the results and plan of correction from your most recent state inspection?"
Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| North Valley Hospital | 19.8 mi | Tonasket, WA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 |
Compare this facility with the 1 closest →
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 505303.