Grandview Assisted Living
Assisted Living
Strengths
- +Location scores in the top 10%, suggesting strong neighborhood access and surrounding area quality.
- +Reviewers consistently praised the attentive, compassionate staff and warm atmosphere.
Concerns
- −7 of 8 inspections had response scores below 50, indicating the facility repeatedly failed to adequately address problems found during inspections.
- −2 of 8 inspections were rated severe, including failure to coordinate medical transportation that delayed treatment of a life-threatening condition.
- −Fire safety inspections found recurring violations including missing drill documentation for 9 months and combustible storage near sprinklers, though issues were corrected with moderate response time.
Reviews
Exceptional Family-Style Memory Care
Magnolia Gardens consistently earns high praise for exceptional staff compassion, round-the-clock personal care, and a genuine home atmosphere with home-cooked meals. Reviewers emphasize the owners' hands-on involvement, experienced caregivers who understand dementia patients' needs, and warm family-like environment. One outlier review appears misplaced, describing a different facility (Grandview Assisted Living) with serious security and care concerns that don't align with other feedback.
My mother lived here for two years before her passing this month. There are not enough positive comments to do this home the justice it deserves. This home for six women, gives per
I cant say enough wonderful things about Magnolia Gardens Adult Foster Care. From the moment we first visited we felt the warmth and dedication of the staff. Caregivers are incredi
Honestly speaking! Building is bit Classic but Staff are so Heartful and kind, the vibe is like 90s era! My Dad loves to be here ✅
Beautiful Senior Home!.. The love and Care provided here, is top notch. You won't find a better place for your loved ones.
Inspections(8)
Follow-up inspection on 01/13/2026 found no deficiencies at Magnolia Assisted Living. The facility successfully corrected all previously cited violations related to WAC 388-78A-2350 regulations and now meets all licensing requirements. The facility demonstrated effective corrective action in response to prior compliance issues.
View original report →The facility failed to coordinate necessary transportation for a resident to medical appointments, resulting in delayed diagnosis and treatment of a potentially life-threatening condition. This systemic failure in care coordination represents a severe violation warranting a $1,000 civil fine. No facility response or corrective actions are documented in this enforcement notice, as it appears to be the initial notification of the violation requiring the facility to submit a plan of correction within 10 days.
View original report →This follow-up inspection completed on 11/27/2025 found no deficiencies, confirming that the facility successfully corrected all previously cited violations. The prior deficiencies involved timely medication procurement and policies for medical emergencies and resident supervision. The facility demonstrated full compliance with all licensing requirements at the time of this inspection.
View original report →The facility failed two fire safety inspections (April and June 2025), with violations including missing fire drill documentation for 9 months, combustible storage near sprinklers, electrical hazards (exposed outlets, daisy-chained power strips), obstructed emergency exits due to construction, and unsecured oxygen tanks without proper signage. The facility acknowledged non-compliance but required two inspections to identify persistent issues, with corrective actions incomplete as of the July follow-up visit, demonstrating a delayed and inadequate response to systemic fire safety failures.
View original report →This document is an administrative letter scheduling an Informal Dispute Resolution (IDR) meeting for September 24, 2025, regarding a citation dated August 18, 2025. The facility is disputing citation WAC 388-78A-2040 and has requested a formal review process. No deficiencies are assessed in this letter as it is procedural correspondence confirming the IDR process, not an inspection report with findings.
View original report →This is an IDR (Informal Dispute Resolution) decision letter upholding previously cited deficiencies from an August 2025 inspection. The facility disputed findings but the department maintained all deficiencies after review. The facility is required to submit corrective action plans within 10 days and complete corrections within 45 days. Without the original Statement of Deficiencies, the specific violations and facility response cannot be assessed for scoring purposes.
View original report →The facility failed to maintain fire safety compliance after multiple inspections by the Washington State Patrol Fire Protection Bureau, resulting in a third non-compliance finding and civil fine of $400. This represented an uncorrected deficiency previously cited on July 15, 2025, placing residents, staff, and visitors at risk in the event of a fire. The facility's response was inadequate, as demonstrated by the persistence of fire safety violations across three separate inspections despite prior citation, leading to escalated enforcement action.
View original report →This fire inspection identified multiple routine fire safety violations including missing fire drill documentation for 8 months, improper oxygen tank storage and signage, missing outlet covers, unfused power strips, unserviced fire extinguishers, gaps under fire-rated doors, blocked emergency exits due to construction, and missing fire alarm service documentation. The facility demonstrated a good response by immediately correcting 10 violations on-site during the inspection (portable heaters, oxygen signage, kitchen extinguisher bracket, emergency exit signage, electrical hazards, and nuisance log), though several structural and documentation issues persisted through the follow-up inspection requiring continued attention. The facility's prompt on-site corrections and partial resolution by the follow-up visit indicate reasonable responsiveness, but the persistence of door gaps, egress obstructions, and missing maintenance records across two inspections prevents an exemplary rating.
View original report →