Spokane Health & Rehabilitation: Care Plan Failures - WA
The care plan drawn up on April 5, 2025, the day after the resident's admission, contained no breakdown of responsibilities between facility staff and the hospice team. It had no contact information for the hospice provider. A licensed practical nurse told inspectors that information was essential, especially when staff unfamiliar with a resident needed to step in. "If they had staff work that were unfamiliar with the residents they would need that information," the nurse said.
Staff C, whose title the inspection report does not specify, confirmed that hospice normally provided bathing and that this was the kind of detail that belonged in a care plan. Looking at what was on file for this resident, Staff C said it plainly: the care plan "was basic and needed to be updated."
The resident, identified in the report as Resident 311, had been diagnosed with cancer and was receiving hospice, a form of care focused on comfort rather than treatment for people whose illness is expected to end their life within six months. The inspection report does not describe any harm that resulted from the gap in documentation, but the licensed practical nurse's concern was direct: without a clear record, whoever walked into that room on an unfamiliar shift had no written guide.
A nursing assistant, Staff W, told inspectors they knew what care to provide residents by looking at their care plan. That was exactly the problem.
The second finding involved a different resident, identified as Resident 60, and a preference so specific it had been communicated to the facility: the resident wanted their spouse to handle shaving when the spouse was present, and wanted staff to offer help when the spouse was not available. That preference never made it into the care plan or any other part of the electronic medical record.
The unit manager, Staff F, acknowledged the omission directly. If they had known about the resident's preference, Staff F said, they would have put it in the care plan, and staff "should be offering to do it for [them] or assisting [the resident] if the spouse does not come in." The preference, Staff F said, "was not and should have been included in the care plan."
By the time inspectors were on site, the spouse had not visited in roughly a month, according to the Social Services Director, Staff V. There was, Staff V said, "no involvement of Resident 60's spouse with their care at this time."
A nursing assistant, Staff Y, described how shaving generally worked on the unit. "Only if requested," Staff Y said. "Sometimes we don't have time to do all that. If we see a lot of hair we will do it." Staff Y added that residents usually let staff know or kept their own razors in the room, and said Resident 60 "refuses a lot of care." Staff Y said they would offer to shave a female resident because of "personal hygiene and I wouldn't want to have facial hair," though the report does not specify Resident 60's gender.
Neither finding was cited at the highest levels of severity. Inspectors classified both under minimal harm or potential for actual harm. But the pattern they describe is the same in both cases: a resident's specific circumstances, known to at least some staff, never translated into written instructions that would survive a shift change or an unfamiliar face walking through the door.
Resident 311's care plan sat incomplete. Resident 60's spouse had stepped back from visiting, and nobody had written down what that meant for the resident's daily care.
Full Inspection Report
The details above represent a summary of key findings. View the complete inspection report for Spokane Health & Rehabilitation from 2025-04-24 including all violations, facility responses, and corrective action plans.
Additional Resources
Data source: This article is based on inspection data downloaded directly from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) via Medicare.gov. CMS releases inspection reports in bulk; we publish the findings as documented by state surveyors in the official Form CMS-2567 Statement of Deficiencies.
Plan of correction: The CMS report we receive does not include the facility's plan of correction. Facilities submit plans of correction separately to state survey agencies and those responses may not be reflected in CMS data at the time of publication. The absence of a plan of correction in our data does not mean one was not filed. Readers who want information about corrective steps taken are encouraged to contact the facility directly or their state survey agency.
Corrections may have occurred: Inspection reports reflect conditions observed on the date of the survey. Facilities may have implemented corrections, staffing changes, additional training, or other remediation since the report was issued. We report what CMS provides and encourage readers to seek current information from the facility.
Editorial process: Inspection findings are extracted from CMS source documents and synthesized using AI, reviewed for factual accuracy against the original report by our editorial team.
Corrections: We strive for accuracy in everything we publish. If you believe any fact in this article is incorrect, please contact us with details, and we will review and correct it promptly.
Professional review: All content reviewed by Christopher F. Nesbitt, Sr., NH EMT & BU-trained Paralegal.
Last verified: October 27, 2026 · Our methodology
SPOKANE HEALTH & REHABILITATION in SPOKANE, WA was cited for violations during a health inspection on April 24, 2025.
It had no contact information for the hospice provider.
Health inspections identify deficiencies that facilities must correct. Violations range from minor documentation issues to serious safety concerns. Review the full report below for specific details and facility response.