Not rated by CMS — ratings are suppressed for new or low-volume facilities.
The next survey window likely opens around March 2027
Estimate from public CMS data, current as of June 2026. Survey timing is at the state agency's discretion.
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Life Care Center Of Puyallup during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident's allegation of neglect, including being left in soiled briefs, developing open sores, receiving incorrect skin treatment, and having stroke-like symptoms ignored, was not reported to the State Agency as required. The administrator received the complaint but did not log or report the incident.
A resident with diabetes and heart disease, admitted after a surgical amputation, had provider orders for CRP and ESR blood tests following wound care for a dehisced surgical site. The facility transcribed the orders but did not complete the lab work until 40 days later due to lack of a phlebotomist and limited nursing staff trained in blood draws, resulting in the resident's lab work being missed.
A resident with a Stage 4 pressure ulcer did not have weekly wound assessments documented in a timely manner. Instead, several weeks of wound documentation were entered into the electronic medical record retrospectively, and the DNS could not provide consistent source data for these entries.
Two residents with documented urinary incontinence did not have this condition addressed in their care plans until late or not at all, despite assessments indicating the need. The DON confirmed that care plans should have been implemented promptly based on assessment findings.
The facility did not consistently monitor or assess the skin impairments of two residents with pressure injuries and moisture-associated skin damage. Despite initial identification and documentation, there were no ongoing measurements, treatment or monitoring orders, or follow-up assessments to track the status or healing of these wounds, as confirmed by the DON.
Two residents admitted with significant skin impairments, including a sutured leg laceration and multiple bruises, did not receive timely treatment or monitoring orders as required. Orders for wound care and monitoring were delayed by 11 and 14 days, respectively, despite facility expectations for immediate assessment and provider notification.
A resident with hemiplegia and mobility issues reported to an SLP that a staff member refused to provide their bed remote and pushed them, but the allegation was only documented on a grievance form and not immediately reported. The incident was not logged or reported to the State Agency until over a day later, exceeding required reporting timeframes.
The facility failed to develop comprehensive care plans for two residents, leading to deficiencies in their care. One resident with a pressure ulcer lacked a care plan focus area for the ulcer, while another resident's care plan inaccurately reflected their diet and NPO status. Facility staff confirmed these issues did not meet expectations.
The facility failed to follow professional standards of care for several residents, including improper medication administration and inadequate monitoring. A resident did not receive orthostatic blood pressure monitoring, and their medication was administered outside prescribed parameters. Another resident had a foley catheter of the incorrect size, and two residents did not have complete orthostatic blood pressure monitoring or required tests for medication side effects. Staff interviews confirmed these actions did not meet expectations.
The facility failed to provide necessary grooming services for two residents, leading to deficiencies in personal hygiene. One resident, with a right humerus fracture and diabetes, was not assisted with shaving despite expressing a desire for it. Another resident, with rheumatoid arthritis and heart failure, had long, thick toenails and was not referred to a podiatrist as needed. Staff interviews revealed confusion about responsibilities and unmet expectations for care.
A facility failed to ensure proper care for a resident with a fractured humerus by not applying a PRN sling as ordered, and did not consistently monitor or document bowel movements for two residents, leading to missed administration of constipation medication. Staff interviews revealed lapses in following care protocols and documentation procedures.
A resident at high risk for falls did not have fall mats in place as required by their care plan, despite previous falls and multiple diagnoses including stroke and dementia. Staff interviews revealed the mats were removed due to being frayed, and new ones were ordered, but not yet in place.
A resident with diabetes, paraplegia, and anxiety experienced inadequate pain management due to the facility's failure to provide clear parameters for PRN pain medications. The resident reported that the pain relief was insufficient, and staff confirmed the lack of guidance on medication administration. This deficiency risked the resident's quality of life.
The facility failed to maintain safe and functional wheelchairs for two residents, resulting in cracked and torn armrests that were not logged for maintenance. Despite residents' ability to communicate their needs, the issues were not addressed, and staff interviews confirmed the need for repairs.
The facility failed to make survey results easily accessible to residents and did not post notices about their availability in prominent areas. Two cognitively alert residents were unaware of the survey results' location. The binder was found in a conference room, with no notices throughout resident areas. Staff interviews revealed inconsistent knowledge about the binder's location.
The facility failed to provide written transfer notices to three residents, who were only informed verbally about their hospital transfers. An LPN confirmed the lack of written notices, and the Administrator acknowledged the expectation for written documentation, which was not met.
Failure to Report Allegation of Neglect
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to report an allegation of neglect involving one resident, as required by regulation. A public complaint was sent to the State Agency alleging that the resident was left in soiled adult diapers for extended periods, developed open sores in the groin area, received incorrect treatment for skin impairments, and experienced symptoms such as left arm numbness, tingling, nausea, and vomiting, which were reportedly ignored by staff. The complaint was copied to the facility administrator via email. However, a review of the facility's incident report logs showed that the allegation was not logged or reported to the State Agency. During an interview, the administrator confirmed receipt of the complaint but acknowledged that the allegations were not reported to the State Agency.
Failure to Timely Complete Ordered Laboratory Tests
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to follow provider orders for laboratory blood work for one resident who was admitted after a surgical amputation of toes and had diagnoses including diabetes and heart disease. The resident had an order for blood tests (CRP and ESR) to be drawn at the facility following a visit to an outpatient wound care center for treatment of a dehisced surgical foot wound. Although the physician's order for these labs was transcribed into the facility's records, the tests were not performed until 40 days after the order was written. According to the Director of Nursing Services, the delay occurred because the facility did not have a phlebotomist at the time and only two nurses were trained to draw blood, resulting in the resident's lab work being missed.
Failure to Maintain Timely and Accurate Wound Documentation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain accurate and timely wound monitoring records for a resident with a Stage 4 pressure ulcer. The resident was admitted with a significant wound over the sacrum, with exposed bone and specific measurements documented at admission. Although the facility had a process in place for weekly wound documentation using a Wound Observation Tool, records showed that several weeks of wound assessments were not entered into the electronic medical record on a weekly basis as required. Instead, multiple weeks of documentation were entered retrospectively, well after the assessments should have been completed. During interviews, the Director of Nursing Services (DNS) acknowledged that the weekly wound documentation was not completed as scheduled and admitted to being behind in documentation. When asked to provide the original source data for the wound documentation, the DNS was unable to produce records consistent with what was entered into the electronic medical record. This lapse resulted in incomplete and potentially inaccurate clinical information being available to the interdisciplinary team.
Failure to Develop Comprehensive Care Plans for Urinary Incontinence
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop and implement comprehensive care plans addressing urinary incontinence for two residents. For the first resident, who was admitted with diagnoses including hip fracture with surgical repair, weakness, difficulty walking, and a need for assistance with personal care, the admission MDS indicated that the resident was always incontinent of bowel and bladder. However, review of the comprehensive care plan showed that incontinence was not listed, and there were no goals or interventions documented to address this need. For the second resident, who was admitted with dementia, overactive bladder, and a need for assistance with personal care, the admission MDS and facility documentation indicated frequent bladder incontinence. Despite this, the comprehensive care plan did not include incontinence until the date of discharge. During an interview, the DNS confirmed that care plans for incontinence should have been in place as soon as the need was identified through assessments.
Failure to Monitor and Assess Pressure Injuries and Skin Impairments
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to routinely monitor and assess the status of skin impairments for two residents who were at risk for pressure injuries. One resident was admitted with a hip fracture, weakness, and impaired mobility, and was identified as having a stage 1 pressure injury over the sacrum. Although the care plan noted the risk for pressure-related skin injury, there were no documented measurements of the injury, no treatment or monitoring orders, and no follow-up documentation to indicate whether the injury was monitored, worsened, or improved after admission. Another resident, admitted with dementia, generalized muscle weakness, and incontinence, was identified as having moisture-associated skin damage and a small open area in the gluteal cleft. Initial documentation included measurements of the wound, but subsequent records lacked ongoing measurements or descriptions of the wound's status. There was no further documentation after the initial assessment to show that the open area was monitored or that its condition was tracked over time. The Director of Nursing Services confirmed that monitoring orders and weekly assessments should have been in place for both residents.
Failure to Implement Timely Skin Impairment Treatment and Monitoring Orders
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement treatment and monitoring orders for skin impairments for two residents upon admission. For one resident, who was admitted with a right lower leg laceration that had been sutured in the hospital, the facility did not initiate any treatment or monitoring orders for the wound until 11 days after admission, despite hospital discharge instructions to follow current wound care recommendations. The resident's initial assessment documented the presence of a significant laceration with 15 stitches, but this was not followed by timely care orders. Another resident was admitted with multiple medical diagnoses and was noted during the nursing admission evaluation to have a large bruise on the right upper shoulder and bruises on both arms. However, no treatment or monitoring orders for these bruises were implemented until 14 days after admission. The Director of Nursing Services confirmed that the expectation was for a full-body skin assessment upon admission and prompt communication with a medical provider for any skin impairments, which did not occur in these cases.
Failure to Timely Identify and Report Alleged Abuse
Penalty
Summary
A resident with hemiplegia, muscle weakness, and difficulty walking was admitted to the facility and required assistance with personal care. On the morning of 04/21/2025, the resident reported to a Speech Language Pathologist (SLP) that a staff member had refused to give them their bed remote control and pushed them on the shoulder the previous night, expressing that the staff member appeared angry. The SLP relayed the allegation to their supervisor and documented it on a grievance form, which was then placed in a grievance box near the social services office. The facility's incident report log showed that the allegation of abuse was not logged until 04/22/2025, and the State Agency was notified approximately 33 hours after the resident initially reported the incident. The Director of Nursing Services (DNS) stated they were unaware of the delay, and the Administrator acknowledged that the allegation should have been reported to the State Agency within 2 hours, rather than being handled solely through the grievance process. This delay in identifying and reporting the abuse allegation resulted in a failure to meet required reporting timeframes.
Deficiencies in Care Planning for Two Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop comprehensive care plans for two residents, which led to deficiencies in their care. Resident 10, who was admitted with paraplegia, diabetes, and a pressure ulcer, did not have a care plan focus area for the pressure ulcer. Despite receiving treatment from facility staff and an outside wound provider, the care plan lacked specific interventions for the pressure ulcer. Interviews with facility staff, including a Licensed Practical Nurse/Unit Care Coordinator and the Director of Nursing Services, confirmed that the absence of a care plan focus area for the pressure ulcer did not meet the facility's expectations. Resident 80, admitted with hydrocephalus, dysphagia, and respiratory failure, also experienced a deficiency in care planning. The resident's care plan inaccurately reflected a diet intervention of nothing by mouth (NPO), despite having a provider's order for a regular diet with puree texture. The resident was observed with a feeding pump machine and reported receiving tube feeding at night. The Director of Nursing Services acknowledged that the care plan was not updated to reflect the current diet and NPO status, which did not meet the facility's expectations.
Deficiencies in Monitoring and Medication Administration
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to adhere to professional standards of care for several residents, leading to deficiencies in monitoring and medication administration. Resident 1, diagnosed with Crohn's disease, autism, and dementia, did not receive orthostatic blood pressure monitoring as ordered, and their medication, midodrine, was administered outside the prescribed parameters multiple times over several months. Staff interviews confirmed that these actions did not meet the facility's expectations for following provider orders. Resident 75, who had a history of stroke, muscle weakness, and neurogenic bladder, was found to have a foley catheter of the incorrect size, contrary to the provider's orders. The resident's family had expressed concerns about the appearance of the resident's urine and reported abdominal pain, which was documented by a licensed nurse. However, the catheter was changed to a smaller size than ordered, and staff were unaware of this discrepancy until it was pointed out during an interview. Resident 72, with anxiety and psychotic disorders, did not have complete orthostatic blood pressure monitoring documented as required by their provider's orders. The MARs for several months showed incomplete or missing documentation of blood pressure readings in different positions. Similarly, Resident 6, who was on quetiapine, did not have the required AIMS test completed to monitor for adverse side effects, and there was no documentation of orthostatic blood pressures. Staff interviews confirmed that these monitoring processes were not conducted as expected.
Deficiencies in Grooming Services for Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide necessary grooming services for two residents, leading to deficiencies in personal hygiene. Resident 49, who was admitted with a right humerus fracture, diabetes, and depression, expressed a desire to shave but was not offered assistance by the facility. Observations showed that Resident 49 had facial hair about an inch long, indicating a lack of grooming. The care plan for Resident 49 required one staff assistance with personal hygiene but did not include specific instructions for shaving. Interviews with staff revealed confusion about responsibilities for shaving, with CNAs providing conflicting accounts of who should assist Resident 49. Resident 61, admitted with rheumatoid arthritis, respiratory failure, and heart failure, required substantial assistance with personal hygiene due to impairments in both upper and lower extremities. Observations showed Resident 61 had long, thick toenails and had requested to see a podiatrist, but their name was not on the referral list. Staff interviews confirmed that Resident 61's toenails should have been trimmed by a podiatrist, but this had not occurred, failing to meet the facility's expectations for care.
Deficiencies in Resident Care and Bowel Management
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure necessary interventions were in place for a resident with a history of a fractured humerus. Resident 75, who had multiple diagnoses including stroke and dementia, was observed without a sling or proper arm positioning despite a provider's order for a PRN sling for comfort when out of bed. The order was not transcribed into the medication administration record (MAR) until several days later, leading to a lack of proper care and positioning for the resident. Staff interviews revealed that the resident's daughter wanted the sling applied, but the resident frequently refused, resulting in a change to a PRN order that was not properly documented. Additionally, the facility failed to consistently monitor and document bowel movements and implement the bowel program for two residents. Resident 6 and Resident 49 both experienced multiple days without bowel movements, yet the prescribed constipation medication was not administered as per the provider's orders. Interviews with staff indicated that the system was supposed to flag when there were no documented bowel movements, but the protocol was not followed, leading to a lack of necessary interventions for these residents.
Failure to Implement Fall Prevention Measures
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that fall mats were in place to minimize the risk of injury during a fall for one resident, identified as Resident 75, who was at high risk for falls. The resident had multiple diagnoses, including stroke, muscle weakness, cancer, dementia, anxiety, and depression, and was dependent on staff for assistance with activities of daily living. Despite the care plan indicating that the bed should be in the lowest position and floor mats should be placed at the side of the bed while the resident slept, these interventions were not observed during the survey. The resident had previously experienced falls on two occasions, and the fall scene investigation reports did not document the presence of fall mats. Interviews with facility staff revealed that the fall mats were not in place due to them being frayed and awaiting replacement. Staff members, including a Licensed Practical Nurse and a Certified Nurse Aide, acknowledged the absence of fall mats and the requirement for them as per the resident's care plan. The Director of Nursing Services confirmed that the mats had been removed earlier, and the Administrator stated that the expectation was for the interventions in the care plan to be implemented. This oversight placed the resident at risk for potential injury and negative outcomes.
Inadequate Pain Management for Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide adequate pain management for a resident, identified as Resident 3, who was admitted with diagnoses including diabetes, paraplegia, and anxiety. Resident 3 reported that the pain medication provided by the facility staff sometimes did not control their pain effectively. When Resident 3 requested additional pain medication, they were informed by the staff that they could not receive more at that time. The review of Resident 3's medication administration records for January and February 2025 revealed that the resident was prescribed two over-the-counter (OTC) pain medications and one narcotic pain medication, all on an as-needed (PRN) basis. However, there were no parameters set for the nursing staff to determine which medication to administer based on the resident's pain level. Interviews with facility staff, including a Licensed Practical Nurse/Unit Care Coordinator and the Director of Nursing Services, confirmed that the PRN pain medications lacked specific parameters to guide nursing staff in medication administration. The Director of Nursing Services acknowledged that the absence of pain scale parameters for PRN medications did not meet the facility's expectations. This deficiency in pain management placed Resident 3 at risk of experiencing uncontrolled pain and a diminished quality of life.
Wheelchair Maintenance Deficiency
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain a safe and functional environment for residents, as evidenced by the condition of wheelchairs used by two residents. Resident 21's wheelchair had a left armrest with cracked and torn vinyl, exposing an uncleanable surface. Despite the resident's ability to communicate their needs, the issue was not addressed by the staff, and the problem was not logged in the maintenance binder from early January to late February. Staff interviews confirmed the armrest's condition and acknowledged that it should have been repaired or replaced. Similarly, Resident 72's wheelchair had a right armrest with cracked and torn vinyl and a left armrest that was unstable. The resident had informed staff about these issues, but they were not logged in the maintenance binder. Staff interviews corroborated the resident's account and identified the need for repairs. The facility's administrator confirmed that the process for logging equipment issues was not followed, and the condition of the wheelchairs did not meet the facility's expectations.
Survey Results Accessibility Deficiency
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that survey results were posted in a location easily accessible to all residents and did not provide notices regarding the availability of these survey reports in prominent areas. This deficiency was identified during a group interview with two cognitively alert residents who were unaware of the survey results' availability or location. Observations revealed that the binder labeled 'State Survey Results' was placed on a small corner table in the conference room on the 100-hall, while the facility had four hallways where residents resided. There were no notices about the binder's availability or location throughout the resident-occupied areas. Interviews with staff members, including an LPN, a receptionist, and the administrator, indicated a lack of consistent knowledge about the binder's location, with the administrator confirming its placement in the conference room but acknowledging the absence of additional signage informing residents or visitors of its location.
Failure to Provide Written Transfer Notices
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide written notification of the reason for transfer to the hospital to three residents, placing them at risk of not knowing their rights regarding transfer and discharge. Resident 21, who was admitted with heart failure, kidney failure, and diabetes, was transferred to the hospital twice without receiving written notice. Similarly, Resident 54, with heart failure, diabetes, and respiratory failure, was transferred once without written notification. Resident 72, with heart failure and diabetes, was also transferred twice without receiving written notice. In each case, the residents or their representatives were only informed verbally. During interviews, Staff C, an LPN/Unit Care Coordinator, confirmed that the residents or their representatives did not receive written notices for the hospital transfers. Staff A, the Administrator, stated that the expectation was for nurses to complete an interact transfer form and provide a written Nursing Home Transfer or Discharge Notice form to the resident and/or their responsible party. However, this procedure was not followed, as evidenced by the lack of documentation in the residents' electronic health records.
What surveyors are citing around you — mapped
All 10 risk areas, ranked with evidence
Repeat citations, what's rising near you, and quality measures — ranked so department heads know exactly where to look first.
Illustrative
What surveyors actually found near you
We read the 594 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 4 immediate-jeopardy cases — and tell you exactly what happened, in plain English, matched to your record.
Resident with a documented fall history left unattended on the patio; found on the ground with a hip fracture.
Walk-in cooler logs missing for 12 days; expired supplements in the medication room fridge.
Illustrative
A prioritized, do-first checklist
Every risk area becomes concrete audit steps drawn from real citations at facilities like yours — run them this week, before your window opens.
Illustrative
Risk indicators are statistical estimates from public CMS data — not predictions, findings, or compliance advice.
Nursing homes near Puyallup
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rainier Rehabilitation | 0.5 mi | — | 0 | 0 |
| Puyallup Post Acute | 0.9 mi | — | 36 | 0 |
| Life Care Center Of South Hill | 1 mi | — | 18 | 1 |
| Linden Grove Health Care Center | 2 mi | — | 45 | 0 |
| Heartwood Extended Healthcare | 5.7 mi | — | 30 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Life Care Center Of Puyallup.
100% money-back within 48 hours.
Trusted data, never guesswork. Every citation, penalty, rating and Plan of Correction on this page is sourced from public CMS records (latest release August 2026) and official state health department websites.