Mukilteo Memory Care.
Mukilteo Memory Care is Ranked in the top 43% of Washington memory care with 10 DSHS citations on record; last inspected Jul 2025.
A large home, reviewed on public record.
Compared to 43 Washington facilities with a similar number of beds.
ALF memory care · 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
Mukilteo Memory Care has 10 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.
10 deficiencies on record. Each bar is a month with a citation.
Finding distribution
10 total · 36 monthsScope × Severity (CMS A–L)
Questions to ask before you visit.
A short pre-tour checklist tailored to Mukilteo Memory Care's record and state requirements.
The facility holds a DSHS Specialized Dementia Care contract — can you walk us through the specific dementia-focused policies and staff competency records required under that contract, and are those documents available for families to review on the tour?
Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.
DSHS records show 8 deficiencies across 8 inspection reports, with the most recent inspection on January 1, 2025 — can you provide copies of the corrective action plans submitted to DSHS for those deficiencies, and explain how the facility tracks completion of each corrective measure?
Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.
Six complaints were filed with DSHS Residential Care Services during the inspection period on file — were any of those complaints substantiated, and what specific changes to policies or operations did the facility implement in response?
Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.
Every inspection visit, verbatim.
8 inspections in the public record, most recent first. Click any row to expand — cited rows open automatically.
2025-07-01Complaint InvestigationNo findings
2025-05-01Complaint Investigation1 finding
Plain-language summary
I don't have enough information in the source text to write an accurate summary. The narrative section is blank, and the conclusion indicates either a failed provider practice was cited or no citation was written, but doesn't specify what was investigated or what was found. To provide families with a meaningful summary, I would need details about what complaint was investigated and what the inspection discovered.
“The facility failed to follow their policy requiring physician evaluation within two days after staff reported a resident's change of condition (significant pain and difficulty ambulating following a fall).”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
WAC 388-78A-2600: The facility failed to follow their policy requiring physician evaluation within two days after staff reported a resident's change of condition (significant pain and difficulty ambulating following a fall).
2025-01-01Annual Compliance VisitNo findings
2024-05-01Complaint Investigation4 findings
“The facility failed to implement a negotiated service agreement to provide monitoring and supervision of a resident with a history of resident-to-resident altercations, resulting in additional altercations.”
“The facility failed to ensure that staff had required credentials to provide care and administer medications to residents.”
“The facility failed to ensure medication systems were in place to promote safe medication services when staff intentionally discarded medications for 14 residents.”
“The facility failed to report to the Department when staff threw medications in the garbage, placing residents at risk for harm.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
—: The facility failed to implement a negotiated service agreement to provide monitoring and supervision of a resident with a history of resident-to-resident altercations, resulting in additional altercations. —: The facility failed to ensure that staff had required credentials to provide care and administer medications to residents. —: The facility failed to ensure medication systems were in place to promote safe medication services when staff intentionally discarded medications for 14 residents. —: The facility failed to report to the Department when staff threw medications in the garbage, placing residents at risk for harm.
2024-02-01Complaint Investigation1 finding
“The Assisted Living Facility failed to ensure resident records were documented correctly related to medication systems. The facility did not properly secure medications, resulting in a loss of medication that was later found in the medication cart.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
—: The Assisted Living Facility failed to ensure resident records were documented correctly related to medication systems. The facility did not properly secure medications, resulting in a loss of medication that was later found in the medication cart.
2023-11-01Complaint Investigation1 finding
“The ALF caregivers were not fit tested for N95 respirators and the facility did not implement the Respiratory Protection Program.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
—: The ALF caregivers were not fit tested for N95 respirators and the facility did not implement the Respiratory Protection Program.
2023-09-01Annual Compliance VisitType A · 2 findings
Plain-language summary
During a routine inspection on July 25, 2023, Mukilteo Memory Care was cited for failing to update service agreements for three sampled residents to reflect their current health needs, including skin breakdown and wound care for one resident, pressure wound management for another, and discontinued oxygen and hospice care for the third. Staff documentation showed these residents had active medical conditions requiring specific care interventions, but the facility's service plans contained no information about monitoring, treating, or managing these conditions. This deficiency was previously cited on May 25, 2023, and remained uncorrected at the time of this inspection.
“The facility failed to update negotiated service agreements for 3 of 3 sampled residents to reflect current health status and care needs. Resident 3's agreement did not address ongoing skin issues and picking behavior despite documented wound care and medical orders. Resident 4's agreement did not document pressure sore wound management or dressing change responsibilities. Resident 5's agreement was not updated after discontinuation of hospice and oxygen therapy.”
“The facility failed to follow nurse delegation criteria for 3 of 4 sampled residents. Staff M administered insulin injections and blood sugar checks to Resident 2 without proper nurse delegation documentation. Staff F performed insulin injections for Resident 2 with incomplete delegation supervision (no documentation of required four consecutive weekly visits). Staff F performed blood sugar checks for Resident 3 without documented nurse delegation authorization.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
WAC 388-78A-2130: The facility failed to update negotiated service agreements for 3 of 3 sampled residents to reflect current health status and care needs. Resident 3's agreement did not address ongoing skin issues and picking behavior despite documented wound care and medical orders. Resident 4's agreement did not document pressure sore wound management or dressing change responsibilities. Resident 5's agreement was not updated after discontinuation of hospice and oxygen therapy. WAC 388-78A-2320: The facility failed to follow nurse delegation criteria for 3 of 4 sampled residents. Staff M administered insulin injections and blood sugar checks to Resident 2 without proper nurse delegation documentation. Staff F performed insulin injections for Resident 2 with incomplete delegation supervision (no documentation of required four consecutive weekly visits). Staff F performed blood sugar checks for Resident 3 without documented nurse delegation authorization.
2023-08-01Complaint InvestigationType A · 1 finding
Plain-language summary
A complaint investigation was conducted at this facility. The investigation did not identify a violation, and no citation was written.
“The facility allowed a newly hired staff member with disqualifying fingerprint background check results to work with vulnerable adults in routine resident interaction. This failure placed 56 residents at potential risk for abuse, neglect, and exploitation.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
WAC 388-78A-2470(1): The facility allowed a newly hired staff member with disqualifying fingerprint background check results to work with vulnerable adults in routine resident interaction. This failure placed 56 residents at potential risk for abuse, neglect, and exploitation.
Free · Full Inspection Record
Family reviews
No reviews yet — be the first to share your experience
More options in neighboring cities
Licensed memory care in other cities within this county region — useful when your search radius crosses city limits.