Bridge Crest Post Acute: Discharge Notice Failure - WA
That finding sits at the center of a complaint inspection completed August 25, 2025, at Bridge Crest Post Acute in Vancouver, Washington. The violation involves a single resident, identified in inspection records only as Resident 1, and a discharge that inspectors say happened without the written notice she was owed.
The morning of July 15, 2025, an employee at Bridge Crest called a worker at a methadone clinic connected to Resident 1's care. The resident wanted to go to the hospital to have her legs assessed for an infection. She was alert and oriented. She was already on two antibiotics for the infection in her lower legs. A medical transportation service was arranged, and she was taken to the hospital rather than returned to the facility.
The methadone clinic employee, identified in the inspection report as Collateral Contact 1, described the call she received and confirmed Resident 1 was agreeable to the hospital transfer.
The next day, July 16, Bridge Crest notified the hospital that it would not be readmitting Resident 1. A case manager supervisor at the hospital, identified as Collateral Contact 2, confirmed the facility's notice arrived on that date. Resident 1 had been admitted to the hospital the morning she left.
That same evening, July 16, the facility's interdisciplinary team met and discussed Resident 1's case. By then, the decision was already made and communicated to the hospital. The resident had already been discharged in practice. No written discharge notice had been given to her.
When inspectors asked the Social Service Director, identified as Staff C, whether a written discharge notice had been provided to Resident 1 at the time of discharge, the answer was direct: "No, I don't think so."
The administrator, identified as Staff A, acknowledged the gap when interviewed on August 25. Staff A told inspectors that the interdisciplinary team had met the evening of July 16 and discussed the resident, and said that going forward, the facility would deliver a written discharge notice immediately upon discharge.
The violation is cited under F0627, tagged at a level of minimal harm or potential for actual harm, affecting few residents. The regulatory reference is WAC 388-97-0080, Washington's nursing home resident rights rule governing discharge and transfer notice requirements.
What the inspection record does not contain is any explanation of why Resident 1 was not being readmitted, what happened to her care for the leg infection after she left the hospital, or whether she had any say in the discharge decision beyond agreeing to the initial hospital trip. The record does not indicate she was told, in any formal way, that she would not be returning to Bridge Crest.
She left for what appeared to be a medical assessment. She was alert. She was oriented. She agreed to go to the hospital. By the following afternoon, the facility had already told the hospital she wasn't coming back, and the interdisciplinary team met that evening to discuss a decision that had already been communicated.
The Social Service Director's answer to inspectors was five words. "No, I don't think so."
Full Inspection Report
The details above represent a summary of key findings. View the complete inspection report for Bridge Crest Post Acute from 2025-08-25 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.
Professional review: All content reviewed by Christopher F. Nesbitt, Sr., NH EMT & BU-trained Paralegal.
Last verified: October 5, 2026 · Our methodology
Bridge Crest Post Acute in VANCOUVER, WA was cited for violations during a health inspection on August 25, 2025.
That finding sits at the center of a complaint inspection completed August 25, 2025, at Bridge Crest Post Acute in Vancouver, Washington.
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.