Not rated by CMS — ratings are suppressed for new or low-volume facilities.
Past the typical resurvey interval — a standard survey could occur at any time
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 Park Manor Rehabilitation Ctr during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
The facility failed to manage constipation for a resident with a history of stroke and diabetes, leading to bowel impaction and hospital intervention. Despite having a bowel protocol, prescribed medications were not consistently administered, and clinical alerts were ignored. Another resident with respiratory failure and cancer experienced shortness of breath and nausea, but the facility did not notify the oncologist or assist with the bipap machine, leading to unmet care needs.
The facility failed to provide adequate hygiene care for three residents dependent on staff assistance for ADLs. A resident with fractures and diabetes received only one shower since admission, despite being scheduled for two per week. Another resident with respiratory failure and cancer also reported receiving only one shower, and a third resident with severe cognitive impairment and cancer was observed with unkempt hair, long fingernails, and unchanged clothes. Staff interviews revealed inconsistent hygiene practices and failure to follow up on refusals.
A resident with cancer and malnutrition experienced significant weight loss due to the facility's failure to consistently monitor weights and implement nutritional interventions. Despite policy requirements, the resident's weight was not regularly documented, and the RD did not ensure updated weights during assessments. The DON acknowledged lapses in daily weight list reviews, contributing to the oversight.
A facility failed to ensure effective communication and monitoring for a resident receiving dialysis services. The resident's care plan required vital signs to be checked before and after dialysis, and a communication form to be sent to the offsite center. However, several forms were incomplete, and staff did not routinely assess the resident's vital signs post-dialysis. This lack of adherence to protocol placed the resident at risk for complications.
Failure to Manage Constipation and Respiratory Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to adequately assess and manage the care of two residents, leading to significant health issues. Resident 56, who had a history of stroke, diabetes, and kidney disease, experienced severe constipation that resulted in bowel impaction and required hospital intervention. Despite having a bowel protocol in place, the facility did not consistently administer prescribed medications such as Milk of Magnesia and Miralax, nor did they follow up on clinical alerts indicating the resident had not had a bowel movement for several days. This lack of adherence to the bowel protocol and failure to notify the physician in a timely manner contributed to the resident's condition worsening. Resident 71, diagnosed with respiratory failure, pneumonia, malignant cancer, and sleep apnea, experienced increased shortness of breath, weakness, and nausea. The resident's bipap machine was not used consistently due to issues with the mask and lack of assistance from staff. Despite the resident's complaints of nausea and weakness, the facility did not notify the oncologist or sleep specialist, nor did they document the resident's chemotherapy treatment and its potential side effects. The lack of communication and failure to assess the resident's condition led to unmet care needs and potential health risks. The facility's policies on change of condition and bowel management were not effectively implemented, resulting in harm to Resident 56 and potential harm to Resident 71. The staff failed to follow physician orders and did not adequately assess or document changes in the residents' conditions, leading to delays in treatment and negative health outcomes. These deficiencies highlight the need for improved adherence to care protocols and better communication among staff and healthcare providers.
Failure to Provide Adequate Hygiene Care for Dependent Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure adequate hygiene care for residents who were dependent on staff assistance for activities of daily living (ADLs). Resident 41, who was admitted with a fracture and diabetes, reported receiving only one shower since admission, despite being scheduled for two showers per week. Observations showed the resident in a nightgown with uncombed hair, and the resident expressed feeling unclean. The occupational therapist noted hygiene issues and informed the staff that the resident could shower with their braces on, but no further assistance was provided by the nursing staff. Resident 71, admitted with respiratory failure and cancer, also reported receiving only one shower since admission, contrary to their preference for two showers per week. Observations showed the resident in bed with uncombed hair and wearing a hospital gown. The documentation indicated a refusal of one shower without supporting notes, and the resident stated that staff had not offered additional showers. Resident 178, with severe cognitive impairment and cancer, was observed with unkempt hair, long fingernails with debris, and wearing the same clothes for multiple days. The resident's hygiene was neglected, with observations of greasy hair, unbrushed teeth, and unchanged clothes. The documentation showed only two showers provided, with one refusal not documented in progress notes. Staff interviews revealed a lack of consistent hygiene practices and failure to follow up on refusals or provide alternative care options.
Failure to Monitor Resident's Weight and Nutrition
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to consistently monitor the weight and implement nutritional interventions for a resident, identified as Resident 71, who was at risk for significant weight loss. The resident was admitted with diagnoses including malignant cancer and protein calorie malnutrition. Despite the facility's policy to obtain weekly weights for new admissions and residents with weight changes, Resident 71's weight was not consistently monitored. The resident's weight was only documented on two occasions shortly after admission, and no further weights were obtained or documented until a significant weight loss was noted. Interviews and observations revealed that the nursing assistants were responsible for obtaining weights, but there was a lack of documentation and follow-up. The weight list used by the staff did not have dates for when weights were obtained, and the Director of Nursing Services acknowledged that a re-weigh was requested due to the significant weight loss but was not documented. The Registered Dietician (RD) assessed the resident's nutritional intake as very low and recommended monitoring intake and weight, but did not ensure an updated weight was obtained during follow-ups. The RD's follow-up progress note showed that the resident's nutritional intake remained poor, and the resident's representative attempted to encourage eating. However, the RD did not request an updated weight during the assessment, citing staff busyness as a reason. The Director of Nursing Services admitted to not reviewing or documenting the weight list daily, especially in the absence of the Assistant Director of Nurses, who was on vacation. This lack of consistent monitoring and documentation contributed to the resident's significant weight loss, which was not addressed in a timely manner.
Failure in Communication and Monitoring for Dialysis Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure effective communication and coordination between the facility and an offsite dialysis center for a resident requiring dialysis services. Resident 11, who was admitted with end-stage renal disease, congestive heart failure, and anemia, was scheduled to receive dialysis three times a week. The resident's care plan required that vital signs be checked before and after dialysis treatments, and a dialysis communication form was to be sent with the resident to the offsite center. However, from February 2, 2025, to March 25, 2025, eight out of 22 communication forms were not completed, and there was no documentation that facility staff contacted the dialysis center to obtain the missing information. Interviews with facility staff revealed a lack of adherence to the established protocol. Staff R, a charge nurse, acknowledged that the communication book was sent with residents but admitted that they did not routinely assess Resident 11's vital signs upon return from dialysis. Nursing assistants, Staff S and Staff T, confirmed they were not informed to take the resident's vital signs after dialysis. The Director of Nursing Services, Staff B, stated that the expectation was to call the dialysis center for missing information and document it in the resident's chart, but the orders did not include taking post-dialysis vital signs. This lack of communication and monitoring placed the resident at risk for complications and unmet care needs.
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 48 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — 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 Walla Walla
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Regency At The Park | 1 mi | — | 13 | 0 |
| Washington Odd Fellows Home | 1.9 mi | — | 1 | 0 |
| Washington State Walla Walla Veterans Home | 2.4 mi | — | 28 | 0 |
| Milton Freewater Health And Rehabilitation | 7.8 mi | — | 6 | 0 |
| Willowbrook Post Acute | 35.3 mi | — | 3 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Park Manor Rehabilitation Ctr.
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.