Aegis Living Kirkland Waterfront.
Aegis Living Kirkland Waterfront is Ranked in the bottom 1% on citation frequency among Washington peers with 19 DSHS citations on record; last inspected Aug 2024.
A large home, reviewed on public record.
© Google Street View
Compared to 22 Washington facilities with a similar number of beds.
ALF · 36-month window. Higher percentile = better performance on inspection record. Source: Washington DSHS · Aging and Disability Services Administration.
among peers to rank.
Rankings based on 36-month DSHS inspection data. Severity and frequency: fewer citations = higher percentile. Repeat rate: lower repeat citation share = higher percentile.
FACILITY WATCH · FREE
Aegis Living Kirkland Waterfront has 19 citations on record. Know the moment anything changes.
New findings, complaint investigations, or status changes — emailed to you free.
Where are you in the process? (optional)
Citation history, plotted month by month.
19 deficiencies on record. Each bar is a month with a citation.
Finding distribution
19 total · 36 monthsScope × Severity (CMS A–L)
Every inspection visit, verbatim.
2 inspections in the public record, most recent first. Click any row to expand — cited rows open automatically.
2024-08-01Annual Compliance VisitType B · 18 findings
Plain-language summary
During a routine inspection in August 2024, the facility was evaluated against Washington DSHS standards for specialized dementia care. No deficiencies were cited at this visit.
“The facility failed to meet requirements related to staffing or services documentation.”
“The facility failed to meet requirements related to staffing or service provision.”
“The facility failed to meet requirements related to staffing or service delivery.”
“The facility failed to complete a required medical device assessment for a resident with a change of condition. The resident had bed side rails in use but there was no documentation of physician's order, assessment of the resident's ability to safely use the device, or written consent.”
“The facility failed to complete an assessment when a resident's negotiated service agreement no longer addressed current needs. This related to a resident newly admitted to hospice care requiring side rails.”
“The facility failed to update the Individualized Service Plan (ISP) for 4 residents to address identified risks to health and safety from preadmission and full assessments, including documentation of catheter care protocols and external service provider coordination.”
“The facility failed to update the ISP for 4 residents based on ongoing assessments, leaving unmet care needs undocumented.”
“The facility failed to include risk monitoring plans and interventions in the ISP for 4 residents with identified health and safety risks.”
“The facility failed to document care and services necessary to meet residents' needs and address identified risks in the negotiated service agreement for 4 residents.”
“The facility failed to document residents' preferences for how services would be provided and accommodated in the ISP for sampled residents.”
“The facility failed to clearly define roles and responsibilities in the negotiated service agreement for providing care and services to residents.”
“The facility failed to document alternate plans for providing care or services when external providers were unavailable.”
“The facility failed to establish clearly defined roles and responsibilities and alternate care plans in negotiated service agreements.”
“The facility failed to meet requirements related to medication administration or management documentation.”
“The facility failed to meet requirements related to medication monitoring or documentation.”
“The facility failed to meet requirements related to medication handling or administration.”
“The facility failed to meet requirements related to care planning or documentation.”
“The facility failed to meet requirements related to care planning or service delivery.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
WAC 388-78A-2100(2)(b)(i): The facility failed to complete a required medical device assessment for a resident with a change of condition. The resident had bed side rails in use but there was no documentation of physician's order, assessment of the resident's ability to safely use the device, or written consent. WAC 388-78A-2100(2)(b)(ii): The facility failed to complete an assessment when a resident's negotiated service agreement no longer addressed current needs. This related to a resident newly admitted to hospice care requiring side rails. WAC 388-78A-2140(1)(a)(i): The facility failed to update the Individualized Service Plan (ISP) for 4 residents to address identified risks to health and safety from preadmission and full assessments, including documentation of catheter care protocols and external service provider coordination. WAC 388-78A-2140(1)(a)(ii): The facility failed to update the ISP for 4 residents based on ongoing assessments, leaving unmet care needs undocumented. WAC 388-78A-2140(1)(a)(iii): The facility failed to include risk monitoring plans and interventions in the ISP for 4 residents with identified health and safety risks. WAC 388-78A-2140(1)(a): The facility failed to document care and services necessary to meet residents' needs and address identified risks in the negotiated service agreement for 4 residents. WAC 388-78A-2140(1)(e): The facility failed to document residents' preferences for how services would be provided and accommodated in the ISP for sampled residents. WAC 388-78A-2140(2)(a): The facility failed to clearly define roles and responsibilities in the negotiated service agreement for providing care and services to residents. WAC 388-78A-2140(2)(b): The facility failed to document alternate plans for providing care or services when external providers were unavailable. WAC 388-78A-2140(2): The facility failed to establish clearly defined roles and responsibilities and alternate care plans in negotiated service agreements. WAC 388-78A-2320(2)(a): The facility failed to meet requirements related to medication administration or management documentation. WAC 388-78A-2320(2)(b): The facility failed to meet requirements related to medication monitoring or documentation. WAC 388-78A-2320(2)(e): The facility failed to meet requirements related to medication handling or administration. WAC 388-78A-2420(2): The facility failed to meet requirements related to care planning or documentation. WAC 388-78A-2420(4): The facility failed to meet requirements related to care planning or service delivery. WAC 388-78A-2210(1)(b): The facility failed to meet requirements related to staffing or services documentation. WAC 388-78A-2210(1): The facility failed to meet requirements related to staffing or service provision. WAC 388-78A-2210: The facility failed to meet requirements related to staffing or service delivery.
2023-11-01Complaint Investigation1 finding
“Staff failed to remove old Rivastigmine patches before applying new ones, resulting in a resident having four patches applied simultaneously. This violated facility policy requiring removal of old patches prior to applying new medication patches.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
—: Staff failed to remove old Rivastigmine patches before applying new ones, resulting in a resident having four patches applied simultaneously. This violated facility policy requiring removal of old patches prior to applying new medication patches.
Other facilities in King County.
Other memory care facilities in King County with similar care offerings.
Free · Facility Watch
Family reviews
No reviews yet — be the first to share your experience
Other memory care options nearby.
More options in neighboring cities
Licensed memory care in other cities within this county region — useful when your search radius crosses city limits.