Yakima Valley School
609 Speyers Road, Selah, WA 98942 · Yakima County · 112 certified beds · avg 47 residents/day · certified since Apr 21, 1994
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.
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
Health inspection rating: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · CMS overall rating: 3/5
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)
▲ Immediate jeopardy, repeated · Sep 3, 2024 · F-0609 · triggered by a complaint
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.
Why it matters: When incidents aren't reported promptly, abusers may continue harming residents and outside authorities can't step in.
Severity (K): A life-threatening or extremely dangerous situation affected several residents. Among the most serious findings an inspection can produce.
Corrected: Sep 18, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, one-off · Aug 20, 2025 · 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): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.
Corrected: Sep 19, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, one-off · May 28, 2025 · 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): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.
Corrected: Jun 27, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, one-off · Sep 3, 2024 · F-0600 · triggered by a complaint
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.
Why it matters: Abuse and neglect cause direct physical and emotional harm and are among the most serious failures a nursing home can have.
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: Sep 3, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
All citations in the current public record (34)
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 |
|---|---|---|
| May 1, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not follow the rules about resident work. Residents must never be forced to work for the nursing home, but those who want to work must be allowed to. |
| May 1, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| May 1, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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 |
| May 1, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. These written safeguards are the foundation of resident protection. · from a complaint |
| May 1, 2026 | D · Potential for 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. |
| May 1, 2026 | 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. |
| May 1, 2026 | C · Minimal risk, facility-wide | 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. |
| Apr 7, 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. · from a complaint |
| Nov 3, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. · from a complaint |
| Aug 20, 2025 | ▲ G · Actual 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. · from a complaint |
| Jun 6, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility used physical restraints — devices that limit a resident's movement — when they weren't needed for medical treatment. |
| Jun 6, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Jun 6, 2025 | 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. |
| Jun 6, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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). |
| Jun 6, 2025 | 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. |
| Jun 6, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Jun 6, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. |
| Jun 6, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| May 28, 2025 | ▲ G · Actual 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. · from a complaint |
| Mar 19, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not protect residents from misuse of their belongings or money — this is called misappropriation, and it includes theft or improper use of a resident's property or funds. · from a complaint |
| Nov 26, 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 |
| Sep 3, 2024 | ▲ K · Immediate jeopardy, repeated | 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 |
| Sep 3, 2024 | ▲ G · Actual harm, one-off | 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 |
| Sep 3, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. These written safeguards are the foundation of resident protection. · from a complaint |
| Jul 1, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential. · from a complaint |
| Apr 26, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Apr 26, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Apr 26, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not treat residents with respect and dignity, or did not let them keep and use their own personal belongings. |
| Apr 26, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not properly hold, secure, and manage residents' personal money that was deposited with it for safekeeping. Facilities holding residents' funds must keep careful, honest accounts. |
| Apr 26, 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. |
| Apr 26, 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. |
| Apr 26, 2024 | 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. |
| Apr 17, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not provide basic life support, such as CPR, before emergency medical help arrived — care that's required when it matches the doctor's orders and the resident's own written wishes. · from a complaint |
| Apr 17, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not prepare and serve food in a form that meets each resident's individual needs — for example, chopped, pureed, or softened food for residents with chewing or swallowing problems. · from a complaint |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (8 → 7).
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | 14 | 2 | K ▲ |
| 2025 | 12 | 2 | G ▲ |
| 2026 | 8 | 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)
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) | 18.14 | 4.24 | 3.95 | top 1% in Washington; top 1% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 2.33 | 0.91 | 0.69 | top 1% in Washington; top 1% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 16.63 | 3.69 | 3.50 | top 1% in Washington; top 1% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 1.26 | 0.67 | 0.48 | top 3% in Washington; top 3% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 32.2 | 45.1 | 45.8 | top 16% in Washington; top 18% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 30.4 | 45.4 | 42.9 | top 22% in Washington; top 30% 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 16.60, RN 2.13, weekend 15.21. 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: 3/5 · long-stay residents: 3/5 · short-stay residents: —/5
Who owns this facility
Government - State
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership Data Not Available |
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?"
- "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
- "Tell me about this abuse or neglect citation — what happened, and what specific changes did you make afterward?"
- "If a resident wants to help out or work here, how is that arranged and documented so it's always voluntary?"
- "How do you record and honor each resident's treatment wishes and advance directives, and how do staff know about them?"
- "What specific steps do you take to prevent abuse and neglect, and how are staff trained on them?"
- "How do you prevent bedsores for residents who can't move themselves, and how often are at-risk residents repositioned?"
- "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
- "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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Good Samaritan Health Care Ctr | 3.5 mi | Yakima, WA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Landmark Care and Rehabilitation | 3.6 mi | Yakima, WA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Crescent Health Care | 3.9 mi | Yakima, WA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Summitview Rehab and Health Center | 4.2 mi | Yakima, WA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Garden Village | 4.5 mi | Yakima, WA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Willow Springs Care and Rehabilitation | 5.7 mi | Yakima, WA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Parkside Care | 7.9 mi | Union Gap, WA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Emerald Care | 15.5 mi | Wapato, WA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 50A261.