Regency Pullman.
Regency Pullman is Ranked in the top 41% of Washington memory care with 7 DSHS citations on record; last inspected Nov 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
Regency Pullman has 7 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.
7 deficiencies on record. Each bar is a month with a citation.
Finding distribution
7 total · 36 monthsScope × Severity (CMS A–L)
Questions to ask before you visit.
A short pre-tour checklist tailored to Regency Pullman's record and state requirements.
The most recent DSHS inspection was November 1, 2025 — can you provide a copy of the facility's written response to that inspection and show families how any cited deficiencies were corrected?
Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.
DSHS records show 8 total deficiencies across 5 inspections and 3 complaints on file — were any of those complaints substantiated, and what documentation can you share about how the facility addressed substantiated findings?
Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.
The facility holds a DSHS Specialized Dementia Care contract — can you walk families through the written dementia care program that supports that contract and explain how staff demonstrate competency in dementia-specific techniques?
Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.
Every inspection visit, verbatim.
5 inspections in the public record, most recent first. Click any row to expand — cited rows open automatically.
2025-11-01Annual Compliance VisitType A · 3 findings
Plain-language summary
During a routine inspection conducted September 30–October 3, 2025, at Regency Pullman, DSHS found that the facility failed to properly monitor and document care for one resident with a known skin lesion later identified as cancer, and failed to complete required monthly weight monitoring for the same resident as outlined in the care plan. These deficiencies placed the resident at risk for harm and unmet care needs, and this issue had been previously cited at the facility in March 2024. The facility was required to submit a plan of correction and implement systems to ensure continued compliance with care monitoring requirements.
“Facility failed to ensure skin integrity monitoring was included in the resident's record for a resident with a known skin condition (dark lesion on nose resembling a scab). The Care Evaluation and Service Plan contained no documentation related to the skin cancer diagnosis despite the resident's admission with the visible lesion.”
“Facility failed to complete monthly weight monitoring as specified in the negotiated service agreement for one resident. The resident lost 11 pounds (121 lbs to 111 lbs) between admission and October 2025, with weights not documented in July and August, placing the resident at risk for continued weight loss.”
“Facility failed to ensure a written agreement was in place for family medication assistance for one resident in the memory care unit. The resident missed multiple doses of metoprolol (6 days) and Synthroid (13 days) because the family representative did not obtain medication refills before the supply ran out.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
WAC 388-78A-2140: Facility failed to ensure skin integrity monitoring was included in the resident's record for a resident with a known skin condition (dark lesion on nose resembling a scab). The Care Evaluation and Service Plan contained no documentation related to the skin cancer diagnosis despite the resident's admission with the visible lesion. WAC 388-78A-2160: Facility failed to complete monthly weight monitoring as specified in the negotiated service agreement for one resident. The resident lost 11 pounds (121 lbs to 111 lbs) between admission and October 2025, with weights not documented in July and August, placing the resident at risk for continued weight loss. WAC 388-78A-2290: Facility failed to ensure a written agreement was in place for family medication assistance for one resident in the memory care unit. The resident missed multiple doses of metoprolol (6 days) and Synthroid (13 days) because the family representative did not obtain medication refills before the supply ran out.
2025-07-01Complaint Investigation2 findings
Plain-language summary
I don't have enough information in the narrative provided to write a meaningful summary. The document shows that a complaint investigation occurred, but the "Outcome" and "Conclusion/Action" sections are blank or marked "N/A," and no narrative details about what was investigated or what was found are included. To provide families with accurate information, I would need the actual findings from the investigation — what the complaint alleged, what the inspector found, and whether any violations were cited.
“The facility failed to ensure that three staff members were screened for tuberculosis within three days of employment, putting residents at risk for infection.”
“The facility failed to ensure that one caregiver obtained home-care aide certification despite being employed for more than 200 days.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
WAC 388-78A-2480(1): The facility failed to ensure that three staff members were screened for tuberculosis within three days of employment, putting residents at risk for infection. WAC 388-78A-2474(4): The facility failed to ensure that one caregiver obtained home-care aide certification despite being employed for more than 200 days.
2025-01-01Complaint InvestigationType A · 1 finding
Plain-language summary
A complaint investigation at Regency Pullman in December 2024 found that one staff member hired in March 2024 did not have a required national fingerprint background check completed until six months after being hired, and that check came back as unable to be completed by the FBI. The facility was cited for failing to ensure this background check requirement was met before the staff member had access to residents.
“The facility failed to ensure that one sampled caregiver hired after January 7, 2012 had a valid national fingerprint background check on file. The fingerprint check was not attempted until 6 months and 21 days after the employee's hire date, and when completed, could not be processed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
WAC 388-78A-2462: The facility failed to ensure that one sampled caregiver hired after January 7, 2012 had a valid national fingerprint background check on file. The fingerprint check was not attempted until 6 months and 21 days after the employee's hire date, and when completed, could not be processed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
2024-04-01Complaint InvestigationType A · 1 finding
Plain-language summary
A complaint investigation at Regency Pullman in February 2024 found that two medication aides administered eye drops to a resident without the required nursing credentials or delegation training, placing the resident at risk of improper administration. The facility was cited under state nursing services rules and required to submit a plan to correct the deficiency. No adverse outcomes to the resident were documented, and a separate allegation about medication safety was investigated but not substantiated as a facility practice failure.
“Facility failed to ensure two Medication Aides (Staff C and Staff E) received nurse delegation training and/or had the required nursing assistant or Home Care Aide license before administering medicated eye drops to a resident. Staff C had not completed delegation training and neither Staff C nor Staff E held the required credentials, placing the resident at risk for improper eye drop administration.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
WAC 388-78A-2320(1)(b): Facility failed to ensure two Medication Aides (Staff C and Staff E) received nurse delegation training and/or had the required nursing assistant or Home Care Aide license before administering medicated eye drops to a resident. Staff C had not completed delegation training and neither Staff C nor Staff E held the required credentials, placing the resident at risk for improper eye drop administration.
2023-11-01Annual Compliance VisitNo findings
Other facilities in Whitman County.
Other memory care facilities in Whitman County with similar care offerings.
Free · Facility Watch
Family reviews
No reviews yet — be the first to share your experience