Washington ›Selah

Yakima Valley School

Costs & paymentPlan a visit

609 Speyers Road, Selah, WA 98942 (opens Google Maps) · Yakima County · (509) 698-1300· 112 certified beds · avg 47 residents/day · certified since Apr 21, 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)

What the abuse flag means →

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 May 1, 2026
4
Serious findings on record
most recent Aug 20, 2025
$0
Fines, last 3 years
18.14
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: ★★☆☆☆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 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): 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: Sep 18, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · 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): 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: Sep 19, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · 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): 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: Jun 27, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · 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): 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: Sep 3, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

Inspection findings in the public record

Showing the latest 3 of 34 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.

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

    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. F-0566

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

    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. F-0578

  3. 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

View all 34 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
May 1, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · F-0566
May 1, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · F-0578
May 1, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
May 1, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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 · F-0607
May 1, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal 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
May 1, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
May 1, 2026C · Potential for minimal harm, widespreadThe 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
Apr 7, 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. · from a complaint · F-0689
Nov 3, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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 · F-0644
Aug 20, 2025▲ 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
Jun 6, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility used physical restraints — devices that limit a resident's movement — when they weren't needed for medical treatment. · F-0604
Jun 6, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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. · F-0725
Jun 6, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · F-0550
Jun 6, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Jun 6, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Jun 6, 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
Jun 6, 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
Jun 6, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
May 28, 2025▲ 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
Mar 19, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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 · F-0602
Nov 26, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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 3, 2024▲ K · Immediate jeopardy, patternThe 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 3, 2024▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe 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
Sep 3, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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 · F-0607
Jul 1, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential. · from a complaint · F-0583
Apr 26, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Apr 26, 2024E · 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
Apr 26, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not treat residents with respect and dignity, or did not let them keep and use their own personal belongings. · F-0557
Apr 26, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · F-0568
Apr 26, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Apr 26, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Apr 26, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Apr 17, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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 · F-0678
Apr 17, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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 · F-0805

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (8 → 7).

Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2024
All citations: 14
Serious citations (G–L): 2
2025
All citations: 12
Serious citations (G–L): 2
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
2024142K ▲
2025122G ▲
202680D

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 →

No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.

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: 18.14
Washington average: 4.24
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 2.33
Washington average: 0.91
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 16.63
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)18.144.243.95top 1% in Washington; top 1% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours2.330.910.69top 1% in Washington; top 1% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing16.633.693.50top 1% in Washington; top 1% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)1.260.670.48top 3% in Washington; top 3% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)32.245.145.8top 16% in Washington; top 18% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)30.445.442.9top 22% in Washington; top 30% 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 16.60, RN 2.13, weekend 15.21.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (16.60 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: 3/5 · long-stay residents: 3/5 · short-stay residents: —/5

Costs & payment

Price evidence · separate from quality

No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Yakima Valley School. 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 / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Ownership Data Not Available

All 1 owning or managing party CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.

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.

  • "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?"

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 32% 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)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Good Samaritan Health Care Ctr3.5 miYakima, WA★★★★★5/5
Landmark Care and Rehabilitation3.6 miYakima, WA★☆☆☆☆1/5
Crescent Health Care3.9 miYakima, WA★★☆☆☆2/5
Summitview Rehab and Health Center4.2 miYakima, WA★★★★★4/5
Garden Village4.5 miYakima, WA★★☆☆☆2/5
Willow Springs Care and Rehabilitation5.7 miYakima, WA★★★★☆4/5
Parkside Care7.9 miUnion Gap, WA★☆☆☆☆1/5
Emerald Care15.5 miWapato, WA★★★★☆3/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

Other facilities in the same county

CMS records place this facility in Yakima, WA — 11 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.

Listed by facility name — not a ranking. Homes already in the table above are not repeated here.

All facilities in Selah →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 50A261.

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