Vineyard Park at Queen Anne Manor.
Vineyard Park at Queen Anne Manor is Ranked in the top 11% of Washington memory care with 3 DSHS citations on record; last inspected Nov 2025.
A large home, reviewed on public record.
Compared to 14 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.
on file.
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
Vineyard Park at Queen Anne Manor has 3 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.
3 deficiencies on record. Each bar is a month with a citation.
Finding distribution
3 total · 36 monthsScope × Severity (CMS A–L)
Questions to ask before you visit.
A short pre-tour checklist tailored to Vineyard Park at Queen Anne Manor's record and state requirements.
DSHS records show 3 deficiencies across 2 inspection reports — can you walk us through the corrective action plans the facility submitted for each deficiency, and confirm whether DSHS has formally accepted those plans?
Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.
Two complaints were filed with DSHS Residential Care Services during the inspection period on file — were any of those complaints substantiated, and what documentation can you share about the facility's response?
Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.
Vineyard Park holds a DSHS Specialized Dementia Care contract — can you describe in writing what additional supports, policies, or staff training requirements that contract imposes beyond standard assisted living regulations under RCW chapter 18.20?
Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.
Every inspection visit, verbatim.
2 inspections in the public record, most recent first. Click any row to expand — cited rows open automatically.
2025-11-01Complaint InvestigationType A · 1 finding
Plain-language summary
A complaint investigation on September 16, 2025 found that the facility's official care plan stated a registered nurse was present 40 hours per week, but the administrator confirmed the nurse was actually in the building only about one day per week—a change that occurred after the facility changed ownership on April 1, 2025. The facility failed to provide residents with the required 30-day notice of this reduction in nursing care before implementing it. The facility updated its care plan to reflect the actual staffing level and the administrator agreed to notify residents of the change.
“The assisted living facility failed to provide the required 30-day written notice to residents and their representatives before reducing nursing services from 40 hours per week to one day per week. The facility changed ownership on 04/01/2025 and reduced nurse availability without proper notification, placing 81 residents at risk.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
WAC 388-78A-2710(3)(b): The assisted living facility failed to provide the required 30-day written notice to residents and their representatives before reducing nursing services from 40 hours per week to one day per week. The facility changed ownership on 04/01/2025 and reduced nurse availability without proper notification, placing 81 residents at risk.
2025-08-01Complaint InvestigationType B · 2 findings
Plain-language summary
A complaint investigation at Vineyard Park at Queen Anne Manor on June 5, 2025 found two deficiencies: the facility failed to provide residents with a disclosure form describing the scope of care and services offered, and assessments for 11 memory care residents did not document their hobbies and activity preferences, placing them at risk of not receiving activities tailored to their interests. During the visit, no group or individual activities were observed taking place on the memory care units. The facility was required to correct these violations and implement monitoring systems to ensure continued compliance.
“The facility failed to develop or provide a Disclosure of Services form describing the scope of care provided. None of the 80 residents received a copy of the scope of care and services available, resulting in residents not knowing the level of care and services available.”
“The facility failed to ensure assessments for 11 residents on two Memory Care Units included preferences for hobbies and activities. This placed residents at risk of not having an activity program tailored to their interests.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
WAC 388-78A-2710: The facility failed to develop or provide a Disclosure of Services form describing the scope of care provided. None of the 80 residents received a copy of the scope of care and services available, resulting in residents not knowing the level of care and services available. WAC 388-78A-2090-10: The facility failed to ensure assessments for 11 residents on two Memory Care Units included preferences for hobbies and activities. This placed residents at risk of not having an activity program tailored to their interests.
Other facilities in King County.
Other memory care facilities in King County with similar care offerings.
Free · Contract Decoder
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.