Every person who worked here at any point in the quarter, employees and contractors. It is not how many are on site at once: that is the "on an average day" figure.
131
46 employees · 85 contractors · 27 on an average day Covenant Living at the Shores
Nursing Home, Assisted Living, Continuing Care Retirement Community, Memory Care & Skilled Nursing · Mercer Island, WA
ALM Inspection Grade
A
ALM's inspection grade is 94 / 100, an A — a combined grade: its CMS-certified nursing-home beds and its state-licensed beds, weighted by bed count · A proprietary Assisted Living Magazine grade.A 0–100 score of a facility's regulatory inspection record, shown as a letter and compared with other facilities of the same kind in the same state. It is not a government rating.
ALM's inspection grade is 94 / 100, an A — a combined grade: its CMS-certified nursing-home beds and its state-licensed beds, weighted by bed count · A proprietary Assisted Living Magazine grade.A 0–100 score of a facility's regulatory inspection record, shown as a letter and compared with other facilities of the same kind in the same state. It is not a government rating.
CMS overall rating
5/5
CMS (the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) is the federal agency that rates nursing home quality. Its Overall Rating runs from 1 to 5 stars, combining health inspections, staffing, and quality measures, with inspections weighted most heavily.
5/5
CMS (the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) is the federal agency that rates nursing home quality. Its Overall Rating runs from 1 to 5 stars, combining health inspections, staffing, and quality measures, with inspections weighted most heavily.
Covenant Living at the Shores
Nursing Home, Assisted Living, Continuing Care Retirement Community, Memory Care & Skilled Nursing · Mercer Island, WA
ALM Inspection Grade
A
ALM's inspection grade is 94 / 100, an A — a combined grade: its CMS-certified nursing-home beds and its state-licensed beds, weighted by bed count · A proprietary Assisted Living Magazine grade.A 0–100 score of a facility's regulatory inspection record, shown as a letter and compared with other facilities of the same kind in the same state. It is not a government rating.
ALM's inspection grade is 94 / 100, an A — a combined grade: its CMS-certified nursing-home beds and its state-licensed beds, weighted by bed count · A proprietary Assisted Living Magazine grade.A 0–100 score of a facility's regulatory inspection record, shown as a letter and compared with other facilities of the same kind in the same state. It is not a government rating.
CMS overall rating
5/5
CMS (the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) is the federal agency that rates nursing home quality. Its Overall Rating runs from 1 to 5 stars, combining health inspections, staffing, and quality measures, with inspections weighted most heavily.
5/5
CMS (the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) is the federal agency that rates nursing home quality. Its Overall Rating runs from 1 to 5 stars, combining health inspections, staffing, and quality measures, with inspections weighted most heavily.
Covenant Living at the Shores accepts Medicaid.
Overview of Covenant Living at the Shores
Serving up to 50 residents, Covenant Living at the Shores is a nursing home on Fortuna Drive in Mercer Island, Washington, that offers skilled nursing, rehabilitation, and respite care. Operating for 31 years, it offers one-bedroom accommodations in a three-story setting and currently maintains a 76% occupancy rate.
Older adults receive 24-hour nursing support, with an average of 4 hours and 58 minutes of direct care per resident each day from registered nurses, licensed practical nurses, and certified nursing assistants.
Amenities such as a fitness studio, private marina, and putting green promote recreation and overall well-being. Although Mercer Island is largely car-dependent, the peaceful waterfront setting offers a quieter environment for older adults.
State inspections conducted by the Washington Department of Health have also reviewed training and maintenance practices. While earlier surveys identified areas for improvement, follow-up inspections confirmed that corrective actions were completed.
Quality ratings
The Overall CMS Rating combines results from health inspections, staffing levels and quality measures. Health inspections carry the most weight. Staffing and quality scores can increase or decrease the final rating based on performance compared to state and national standards.
Based on the results of the facility's three most recent standard inspections and any complaint investigations. CMS reviews the number, scope, and severity of deficiencies, with more recent findings weighted more heavily.
Measures average nursing staff hours per resident per day, including Registered Nurses (RNs) and total nursing staff. Ratings are adjusted based on the level of care residents require and are compared to state and national benchmarks.
Based on clinical and physical health indicators reported to CMS, such as hospital readmissions, falls, pressure ulcers, and improvements in mobility. These measures reflect how well residents' health needs are being managed.
Staffing
Data period: Q2 2026 (April 1 – June 30, 2026).
Nursing care per resident per day and state rankings: CMS Provider Information.
Headcount, shifts and contractors: CMS Payroll-Based Journal (PBJ).
Resident count: CMS Long-Term Care Facility Characteristics (data as of Sep 2026).
Total nursing care per resident / day
This nursing home is ranked 8th out of 59 nursing homes we track in Washington for nurse hours. Total adjusted nursing hours per resident per day, combining RN, LPN, and aide time. CMS adjusts this for case-mix so facilities can be fairly compared.
4h 58m
This nursing home is ranked 8th out of 59 nursing homes we track in Washington for nurse hours. Total adjusted nursing hours per resident per day, combining RN, LPN, and aide time. CMS adjusts this for case-mix so facilities can be fairly compared.
4h 58mStandout metric: Physical therapist is +193% above Washington average
1 of 6 metrics below Washington average
Daily care time per resident, by role
Registered nurse (RN)
RNs hold the highest nursing license and can assess residents, interpret test results, and direct care plans. More RN hours per day often signals stronger clinical oversight and faster response to health changes. 23 total: 10 of the facility's own employees and 13 agency contractors.
23 staff · 10-hour shifts
1h 44m
↑ 78% · WA 59mThis facility: 1h 44m per resident per day, 78% above the Washington average of 59m (among Washington facilities reporting a recent figure).
RNs hold the highest nursing license and can assess residents, interpret test results, and direct care plans. More RN hours per day often signals stronger clinical oversight and faster response to health changes. 23 total: 10 of the facility's own employees and 13 agency contractors.
23 staff · 10-hour shiftsUS average: 42m.Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse. US 42m
LPN / LVN
Licensed Practical Nurses (LPNs) or Licensed Vocational Nurses (LVNs) deliver routine hands-on care — medication administration, wound dressing, and monitoring vital signs. They work under RN supervision and make up a large share of daily bedside care. 8 total: 1 of the facility's own employee and 7 agency contractors.
8 staff · 8.3-hour shifts
11m
↓ 75% · WA 43mThis facility: 11m per resident per day, 75% below the Washington average of 43m (among Washington facilities reporting a recent figure).
Licensed Practical Nurses (LPNs) or Licensed Vocational Nurses (LVNs) deliver routine hands-on care — medication administration, wound dressing, and monitoring vital signs. They work under RN supervision and make up a large share of daily bedside care. 8 total: 1 of the facility's own employee and 7 agency contractors.
8 staff · 8.3-hour shiftsUS average: 52m.Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse. US 52m
Certified nursing assistant
Certified Nurse Aides (CNAs) provide the most direct day-to-day assistance: bathing, dressing, feeding, and mobility. Nurse aide hours are typically the largest staffing category and directly affect residents' quality of life. 71 total: 25 of the facility's own employees and 46 agency contractors.
71 staff · 9.7-hour shifts
3h 3m
↑ 12% · WA 2h 43mThis facility: 3h 3m per resident per day, 12% above the Washington average of 2h 43m (among Washington facilities reporting a recent figure).
Certified Nurse Aides (CNAs) provide the most direct day-to-day assistance: bathing, dressing, feeding, and mobility. Nurse aide hours are typically the largest staffing category and directly affect residents' quality of life. 71 total: 25 of the facility's own employees and 46 agency contractors.
71 staff · 9.7-hour shiftsUS average: 2h 26m.Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse. US 2h 26m
Physical therapist
Hours per resident per day provided by licensed Physical Therapists (PTs) or PT Assistants. PT services help residents recover mobility after injury or illness and are especially important for post-acute (short-stay) rehabilitation.
16m
↑ 193% · WA 5mThis facility: 16m per resident per day, 193% above the Washington average of 5m (among Washington facilities reporting a recent figure).
Hours per resident per day provided by licensed Physical Therapists (PTs) or PT Assistants. PT services help residents recover mobility after injury or illness and are especially important for post-acute (short-stay) rehabilitation.
US average: 4m.Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse. US 4m
Total nursing, weekends
Combined nursing hours (RN + LPN + Nurse Aide) per resident per day on weekends. Staffing often drops on weekends — this figure reveals whether the facility maintains adequate coverage outside of weekday hours.
RN + LPN + aide · Sat–Sun
4h 45m
↑ 24% · WA 3h 49mThis facility: 4h 45m per resident per day, 24% above the Washington average of 3h 49m (among Washington facilities reporting a recent figure).
Combined nursing hours (RN + LPN + Nurse Aide) per resident per day on weekends. Staffing often drops on weekends — this figure reveals whether the facility maintains adequate coverage outside of weekday hours.
RN + LPN + aide · Sat–SunUS average: 3h 32m.Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse. US 3h 32m
RN, weekends
Registered nurse hours specifically on weekends. Facilities sometimes reduce RN presence on Saturdays and Sundays — a low weekend RN figure compared to weekday hours can indicate reduced clinical oversight when most administrative staff are absent.
Sat–Sun
1h 30m
↑ 110% · WA 43mThis facility: 1h 30m per resident per day, 110% above the Washington average of 43m (among Washington facilities reporting a recent figure).
Registered nurse hours specifically on weekends. Facilities sometimes reduce RN presence on Saturdays and Sundays — a low weekend RN figure compared to weekday hours can indicate reduced clinical oversight when most administrative staff are absent.
Sat–SunUS average: 29m.Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse. US 29m
Headcount
Every person who worked here at any point in the quarter, employees and contractors. It is not how many are on site at once: that is the "on an average day" figure.
131
46 employees · 85 contractors · 27 on an average day
131 total staff / 38 residents. Residents: CMS Long-Term Care Facility Characteristics (data as of Sep 2026); staff: CMS Payroll-Based Journal (Q2 2026).Residents and staff come from two different CMS releases, so the two counts can be a few months apart.
3.45 : 1
↑ 97% · WA 1.75This facility: 3.45 staff per resident, 97% above the Washington average of 1.75 (among Washington facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
131 staff ÷ 38 residents
See full Washington ranking →
Average hours one staff member works on a day they are on shift, across every role.
8.6 h
↑ 8% · WA 8 hThis facility: 8.6 h, 8% above the Washington average of 8 h (among Washington facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
21,222 staff hours this quarter
See full Washington ranking →69.1% of staff hours were worked by the facility's own employees
Washington average: 93.9% · Contractors this quarter: Certified Nursing Assistant (46), Registered Nurse (13), Licensed Practical Nurse (7), Physical Therapy Assistant (4), Speech Language Pathologist (4), Respiratory Therapy Technician (3), Qualified Social Worker (3), Physical Therapy Aide (2), Occupational Therapy Aide (1), Medical Director (1), Occupational Therapy Assistant (1)
Why it matters: employees work here week after week and get to know each resident's routines and needs. Agency contractors often rotate between facilities, so a higher employee share usually means more consistent care.
By The Numbers
Community insights.
Bed count
A smaller, more intimate setting that may offer a quieter environment and closer staff-resident interactions.
93
Rank #47 / 69Bed count — State benchmarked This nursing home is ranked 47th out of 69 nursing homes we track in Washington for bed count. Shows this facility's certified or reported bed count compared to other Washington facilities. Larger communities may offer more amenities, programs, and on-site services for residents and families. Communities with the same value for a metric share the same rank. Rankings compare like with like: every nursing home we track in Washington that reports data for that category. Nursing homes without available data are excluded, so the pool size varies from metric to metric.
A smaller, more intimate setting that may offer a quieter environment and closer staff-resident interactions.
93
Rank #47 / 69Bed count — State benchmarked This nursing home is ranked 47th out of 69 nursing homes we track in Washington for bed count. Shows this facility's certified or reported bed count compared to other Washington facilities. Larger communities may offer more amenities, programs, and on-site services for residents and families. Communities with the same value for a metric share the same rank. Rankings compare like with like: every nursing home we track in Washington that reports data for that category. Nursing homes without available data are excluded, so the pool size varies from metric to metric.Smaller home · May offer a more intimate, personalized care environment.
43 nursing-home beds (CMS) + 50 state-licensed beds.
Years of operating
A longer operating history, which may indicate experience navigating regulations and delivering ongoing care. This is the number of years in operation under current management.
Rank #7 / 17Years in operation — State benchmarked This nursing home is ranked 7th out of 17 nursing homes we track in Washington for years in operation. Shows how long this facility has been in operation compared to other Washington facilities. Longer operating histories may benefit residents, families, and staff. Communities with the same value for a metric share the same rank. Rankings compare like with like: every nursing home we track in Washington that reports data for that category. Nursing homes without available data are excluded, so the pool size varies from metric to metric.
A longer operating history, which may indicate experience navigating regulations and delivering ongoing care. This is the number of years in operation under current management.
Rank #7 / 17Years in operation — State benchmarked This nursing home is ranked 7th out of 17 nursing homes we track in Washington for years in operation. Shows how long this facility has been in operation compared to other Washington facilities. Longer operating histories may benefit residents, families, and staff. Communities with the same value for a metric share the same rank. Rankings compare like with like: every nursing home we track in Washington that reports data for that category. Nursing homes without available data are excluded, so the pool size varies from metric to metric.
31
years
Walk Score
Car-dependent. Most errands require a car, with limited nearby walkable options.
Rank #73 / 80Walk Score — State benchmarked This nursing home is ranked 73rd out of 80 nursing homes we track in Washington for walk score. Shows how walkable this facility's neighborhood is compared to the average walk score across Washington facilities. Higher scores benefit residents, families, and staff. Communities with the same value for a metric share the same rank. Rankings compare like with like: every nursing home we track in Washington that reports data for that category. Nursing homes without available data are excluded, so the pool size varies from metric to metric.
Car-dependent. Most errands require a car, with limited nearby walkable options.
Rank #73 / 80Walk Score — State benchmarked This nursing home is ranked 73rd out of 80 nursing homes we track in Washington for walk score. Shows how walkable this facility's neighborhood is compared to the average walk score across Washington facilities. Higher scores benefit residents, families, and staff. Communities with the same value for a metric share the same rank. Rankings compare like with like: every nursing home we track in Washington that reports data for that category. Nursing homes without available data are excluded, so the pool size varies from metric to metric.
18
/ 100
Occupancy rate
Occupancy lower than 85% suggests more openings may be available.
Rank #31 / 56Occupancy rate — State benchmarked This nursing home is ranked 31st out of 56 nursing homes we track in Washington for occupancy. Shows this facility's occupancy rate versus the Washington average, with its Statewide rank out of 56. Higher occupancy signals strong local demand and financial stability. Communities with the same value for a metric share the same rank. Rankings compare like with like: every nursing home we track in Washington that reports data for that category. Nursing homes without available data are excluded, so the pool size varies from metric to metric.
Occupancy lower than 85% suggests more openings may be available.
Rank #31 / 56Occupancy rate — State benchmarked This nursing home is ranked 31st out of 56 nursing homes we track in Washington for occupancy. Shows this facility's occupancy rate versus the Washington average, with its Statewide rank out of 56. Higher occupancy signals strong local demand and financial stability. Communities with the same value for a metric share the same rank. Rankings compare like with like: every nursing home we track in Washington that reports data for that category. Nursing homes without available data are excluded, so the pool size varies from metric to metric.
76%
This home usually has availability
Similar to the Washington average: 77.5%
Avg. Length of Stay
Average number of days residents stay at this facility, based on CMS cost report data. Shorter stays often reflect post-acute or rehab care; longer stays reflect long-term care.
Average number of days residents stay at this facility, based on CMS cost report data. Shorter stays often reflect post-acute or rehab care; longer stays reflect long-term care.
96
days
About This Community
CountyKing
License Number958
Resident Council
ContactGillaspie, Debra (per state records, record updated Jul 2026)
Respite CareRespite care provides families and unpaid caregivers with short-term relief from caregiving duties. Care can range from a few hours to a few weeks.
Pets not allowed
Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC)
Minimum Age62
Fitness Center
Putting Green
Private Marina
Building Type3-story
Room Sizes
633 sq. ft
806 sq. ft
Room Types
Studio
1 Bedroom
2 Bedroom
Two inspection records, one community. Washington inspects its 50 state-licensed beds; CMS inspects its 43 nursing-home beds.
Inspection History and the Inspection Scorecard below are the state record. CMS Health Inspection History, further down, is the federal record. Each covers only its own beds, visits and dates, so the totals are not meant to match, and nothing is counted twice.
Inspection History
In Washington, the Department of Social and Health Services, Residential Care Services conducts unannounced inspections and issues reports on the quality of care in all licensed settings.
Since 2023 · 3 years of data
These figures come from state-published data and the state inspection reports we hold on file. The period covered can vary depending on document availability.
Includes all inspection records for this property, which could include management/ownership changes. 9 deficiencies 6 inspections
Includes all inspection records for this property, which could include management/ownership changes. 9 deficiencies 6 inspections
ALM Inspection Grade
94 / 100
Combined grade: CMS inspection data for this community's nursing-home beds and
Washington inspection data for its
state-licensed beds, weighted by bed count
How the two records combine
Nursing-home beds (CMS) · 46% of the grade
A+ · 97/100
15 points above the Washington average for CMS-certified facilities (82/100).
43 certified beds, 46% of the grade. Graded with CMS-certified facilities on the national scale.
Citations
Strong
73 severity-weighted points (35 deficiencies) · 40% lower than the typical CMS-certified WA facility (median: 123)
Enforcement
Strong
No fines on record · 0 enforcement actions
Persistence
Strong
27 days to fix issues · faster than the typical CMS-certified WA facility (median: 37)
Washington state-licensed beds · 54% of the grade
A- · 92/100
9 points above the Washington average for state-licensed facilities (83/100).
50 licensed beds, 54% of the grade. Graded with Washington state-licensed facilities on the Washington scale.
Deficiencies
Strong
1.5 deficiencies per inspection (9 in 6 inspections) · 2× fewer than the typical state-licensed WA facility (median: 2.7)
0.18 deficiencies per resident bed (9 across 50 beds) · 38% fewer than the typical state-licensed WA facility (median: 0.29)
How the final grade is calculated
A · 94/100
97 × 46% + 92 × 54% = 94 / 100
The two grades are combined in proportion to the beds each record covers: 43 CMS-certified nursing-home beds (46%) and 50 Washington state-licensed beds (54%). The result, 94 out of 100, is an A on the same scale every ALM Inspection Grade uses.
Inspection Scorecard
This scorecard compares key inspection, deficiency, and complaint metrics at this facility against the Washington state average. Metrics rated ≥15% worse than average are highlighted in red; those ≥15% better are highlighted in green.
Since 2023 vs. Washington state average
Overall vs. WA average
0 Worse
No metrics in this bucket.
2 Better
Metrics better than Washington average:
• Total deficiencies (68% below)
• Deficiencies per inspection (52% below)
• Total deficiencies (68% below)
• Deficiencies per inspection (52% below)
Deficiencies
| This Facility | WA Average | vs. WA Avg |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Total deficiencies
Formal regulatory issues recorded by inspectors across all inspection types.
| 9 | 28.0 | This facility has 68% fewer total deficiencies than a typical Washington nursing home (9 vs. WA avg 28).↓ 68% better |
|
Deficiencies per inspection
Average deficiencies per inspection.
| 1.5 | 3.1 | This facility has 52% fewer deficiencies per inspection than a typical Washington nursing home (1.5 vs. WA avg 3.1).↓ 52% better |
Inspections
| This Facility | WA Average | vs. WA Avg |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Total inspections
Combined count of all inspections conducted at this facility.
| 6 | 9.0 | This facility has had 33% fewer total inspections than the Washington average (6 vs. WA avg 9). More inspections can mean more regulatory scrutiny rather than worse care.↓ 33% fewer |
CMS Health Inspection History
Federal inspection data published by CMS, covering this home's Medicare and/or Medicaid-certified skilled-nursing/nursing beds only.
Total health inspections
3
↓ 66% · WA 8.8This facility: 3, 66% below the Washington average of 8.8 (among Washington facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Total health citations
35
Rank #21 / 61Health citations — State benchmarked This nursing home is ranked 21st out of 61 nursing homes we track in Washington for health citations. Shows this facility's total health deficiency citations benchmarked to the Washington State average, with a ranking across all 61 WA facilities. Lower citation counts earn a better rank. Communities with the same value for a metric share the same rank. Rankings compare like with like: every nursing home we track in Washington that reports data for that category. Nursing homes without available data are excluded, so the pool size varies from metric to metric.↓ 30% · WA 49.9This facility: 35, 30% below the Washington average of 49.9 (among Washington facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Citations per inspection
11.67
Rank #56 / 61Citations per inspection — State benchmarked This nursing home is ranked 56th out of 61 nursing homes we track in Washington for citations per inspection. Shows average deficiency citations per CMS inspection for this facility versus the Washington mean across 61 facilities with citation data. Lower is better. Communities with the same value for a metric share the same rank. Rankings compare like with like: every nursing home we track in Washington that reports data for that category. Nursing homes without available data are excluded, so the pool size varies from metric to metric.↑ 89% · WA 6.18This facility: 11.67, 89% above the Washington average of 6.18 (among Washington facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Citation severity
100% corrected
35 of 35 citations corrected
Critical
J–L
0
↓ 100% · WA 0.3This facility: 0, 100% below the Washington average of 0.3 (among Washington facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Immediate jeopardy
Serious
G–I
0
↓ 100% · WA 1.7This facility: 0, 100% below the Washington average of 1.7 (among Washington facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Actual harm
Moderate
D–F
35
↓ 26% · WA 47.4This facility: 35, 26% below the Washington average of 47.4 (among Washington facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
No harm, more than minimal risk
Minor
A–C
0
↓ 100% · WA 0.5This facility: 0, 100% below the Washington average of 0.5 (among Washington facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
No harm, minimal riskLatest inspection: Feb 11, 2026 · 11 citations, all corrected
Most cited category: Resident Assessment & Care Planning, 10 of 35 citations · 7 categories in total
Citations history
Most recent first
Feb 11, 2026
11 citations
Abuse/Neglect moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Quality of Care moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Abuse/Neglect moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Abuse/Neglect moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Care Planning moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Care Planning moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Care Planning moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Quality of Care moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Quality of Care moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Pharmacy moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Infection Control moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Dec 16, 2024
9 citations
Resident Rights moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Care Planning moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Resident Rights moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Resident Rights moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Resident Rights moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Abuse/Neglect moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Care Planning moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Quality of Care moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Pharmacy moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Sep 01, 2023
15 citations
Nutrition moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Care Planning moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Pharmacy moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Infection Control moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Care Planning moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Care Planning moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Care Planning moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Care Planning moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Quality of Care moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Quality of Care moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Quality of Care moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Quality of Care moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Quality of Care moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Quality of Care moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Pharmacy moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Top deficiency categories
Share of 35 citations
Resident Assessment & Care Planning
10 deficiencies (29%)
Quality of Life & Care
10 deficiencies (29%)
Resident Rights
4 deficiencies (11%)
Abuse, Neglect & Exploitation
4 deficiencies (11%)
Pharmacy Services
4 deficiencies (11%)
Infection Control
2 deficiencies (6%)
Nutrition & Dietary
1 deficiency (3%)
How citations are counted
Health citations are formal notices following inspections when they fail to comply with safety and care standards.
All 35 citations resulted from standard inspections.
Includes all CMS health inspection records for this property, which could include management/ownership changes.
Source
Data sourced from CMS Health Deficiencies reports, which cover the Medicare and/or Medicaid-certified skilled-nursing and nursing beds and no other part of the community. Citation severity codes range from A (least serious) to L (most serious). Immediate Jeopardy (J-L) citations indicate situations where the facility's noncompliance has placed residents at risk of death or serious harm.
Enforcement
Penalties and fines
Penalties and fines
Federal penalties imposed by CMS for regulatory violations, including civil money penalties (fines) and denials of payment for new Medicare/Medicaid admissions.
Source: CMS Penalties Database · Data as of Oct 2026
No penalties in the past 3 years
No civil money penalties or payment denials on record since Oct 2023.
Total fines
$0
WA avg $80KWashington average: $80,436. Average among the 116 Washington facilities with a penalty on record.US avg $66KUS average: $66,281, among the 6,725 US facilities with a penalty on record.
Number of fines
0
WA avg 1.89Washington average: 1.89. Average among the 116 Washington facilities with a penalty on record.US avg 1.88US average: 1.88, among the 6,725 US facilities with a penalty on record.
Payment denials
Serious action where Medicare and/or Medicaid temporarily stops payments for new residents until issues are fixed.
Serious action where Medicare and/or Medicaid temporarily stops payments for new residents until issues are fixed.
0
WA avg 0.25Washington average: 0.25. Average among the 116 Washington facilities with a penalty on record.US avg 0.35US average: 0.35, among the 6,725 US facilities with a penalty on record.
Health Outcomes
Quality of care over time
How residents at this home fare on health outcomes and preventive care, compared with the Washington average.
CMS star rating for the care of long-stay residents, who live at the home for 100 days or more. It is built from the long-stay quality measures below. 5 stars is the best.
5
/ 5
Significantly above average
CMS star rating for the care of short-stay residents, mostly people recovering after a hospital stay for under 100 days. It is built from the short-stay quality measures below. 5 stars is the best.
4
/ 5
Above average
Average of five long-stay measures: pressure ulcers, falls with major injury, unplanned weight loss, worsening ability to walk, and needing more help with daily activities. Each is the % of residents affected, so lower is better.
7.2
Score · lower is better
↓ 13% · WA 8.2This facility: 7.2, 13% below the WA average of 8.2 (among WA facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Average of three long-stay measures: needing more help with daily activities, worsening ability to walk, and loss of bowel or bladder control. Each is the % of residents affected, so lower is better.
12.8
Score · lower is better
↓ 24% · WA 17.0This facility: 12.8, 24% below the WA average of 17.0 (among WA facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.9 long-stay measures: 5 better, 3 worse, 1 near WA average
3 short-stay measures: 3 better
Long-stay residents
People who live at the home · 9 measures
Daily care & independence
Needed more help with daily activities
Percent of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased
16.3%
↑ 18% · WA 13.8This facility: 16.3, 18% above the WA average of 13.8 (among WA facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Percent of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased
16.3%
↑ 18% · WA 13.8This facility: 16.3, 18% above the WA average of 13.8 (among WA facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Bowel or bladder incontinence (low-risk residents)
Percent of low risk long-stay residents who lose control of their bowels or bladder
9.4%
↓ 57% · WA 21.6This facility: 9.4, 57% below the WA average of 21.6 (among WA facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Percent of low risk long-stay residents who lose control of their bowels or bladder
9.4%
↓ 57% · WA 21.6This facility: 9.4, 57% below the WA average of 21.6 (among WA facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.Safety & clinical stability
Urinary tract infection
Percent of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection
3.6%
↑ 111% · WA 1.7This facility: 3.6, 111% above the WA average of 1.7 (among WA facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Percent of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection
3.6%
↑ 111% · WA 1.7This facility: 3.6, 111% above the WA average of 1.7 (among WA facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Falls with major injury
Percent of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury
0.0%
↓ 100% · WA 2.6This facility: 0.0, 100% below the WA average of 2.6 (among WA facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Percent of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury
0.0%
↓ 100% · WA 2.6This facility: 0.0, 100% below the WA average of 2.6 (among WA facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Pressure ulcers (high-risk residents)
Percent of long-stay high risk residents with pressure ulcers
2.8%
↓ 36% · WA 4.4This facility: 2.8, 36% below the WA average of 4.4 (among WA facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Percent of long-stay high risk residents with pressure ulcers
2.8%
↓ 36% · WA 4.4This facility: 2.8, 36% below the WA average of 4.4 (among WA facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.Physical & mental health
Lost too much weight
Percent of long-stay residents who lose too much weight
9.6%
↑ 73% · WA 5.6This facility: 9.6, 73% above the WA average of 5.6 (among WA facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Percent of long-stay residents who lose too much weight
9.6%
↑ 73% · WA 5.6This facility: 9.6, 73% above the WA average of 5.6 (among WA facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Depressive symptoms
Percent of long-stay residents who have depressive symptoms
0.0%
↓ 100% · WA 17.9This facility: 0.0, 100% below the WA average of 17.9 (among WA facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Percent of long-stay residents who have depressive symptoms
0.0%
↓ 100% · WA 17.9This facility: 0.0, 100% below the WA average of 17.9 (among WA facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Antipsychotic use
Percent of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication
6.3%
↓ 58% · WA 15.0This facility: 6.3, 58% below the WA average of 15.0 (among WA facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Percent of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication
6.3%
↓ 58% · WA 15.0This facility: 6.3, 58% below the WA average of 15.0 (among WA facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.Preventive care
Pneumococcal vaccine
Percent of long-stay residents assessed and appropriately given the pneumococcal vaccine
100.0%
↑ 4% · WA 96.2This facility: 100.0, 4% above the WA average of 96.2 (among WA facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Percent of long-stay residents assessed and appropriately given the pneumococcal vaccine
100.0%
↑ 4% · WA 96.2This facility: 100.0, 4% above the WA average of 96.2 (among WA facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.Short-stay residents
Rehab and recovery after a hospital stay · 3 measures
Physical & mental health
New antipsychotic medication
Percent of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication
0.7%
↓ 44% · WA 1.3This facility: 0.7, 44% below the WA average of 1.3 (among WA facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Percent of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication
0.7%
↓ 44% · WA 1.3This facility: 0.7, 44% below the WA average of 1.3 (among WA facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.Preventive care
Pneumococcal vaccine
Percent of short-stay residents assessed and appropriately given the pneumococcal vaccine
98.2%
↑ 11% · WA 88.7This facility: 98.2, 11% above the WA average of 88.7 (among WA facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Percent of short-stay residents assessed and appropriately given the pneumococcal vaccine
98.2%
↑ 11% · WA 88.7This facility: 98.2, 11% above the WA average of 88.7 (among WA facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Flu vaccine
Percent of short-stay residents assessed and appropriately given the seasonal influenza vaccine
95.3%
↑ 13% · WA 84.4This facility: 95.3, 13% above the WA average of 84.4 (among WA facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Percent of short-stay residents assessed and appropriately given the seasonal influenza vaccine
95.3%
↑ 13% · WA 84.4This facility: 95.3, 13% above the WA average of 84.4 (among WA facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.Arrows show whether a figure is above or below the average. Green is better for residents, red is worse, and yellow means within 5% of the average. The line on each bar marks the average.
Quality measures are calculated by CMS from Minimum Data Set (MDS) resident assessments and Medicare claims.
Money and staffing.
Covenant Living at the Shores’s finances from its CMS cost report for the fiscal year ending September 2024, compared with 60 Washington nursing homes that filed a recent report. Includes all financial data for this property, which could include management/ownership changes.
FY Sep 2024
Is it financially stable?
Losing money on care, but less than last year
−11.3% operating margin
+0.8 pts vs prior year
An operating loss in 5 of the last 8 reported years. Other income ($0.1M) trims the net loss to −$0.8M. Watch for cost-cutting that reaches staffing.
Does it invest in staff?
Spends less on payroll than most Washington homes
60.2% payroll share of revenue
WA average 64.4%Rank #27 / 60Payroll % of net patient revenue — State benchmarked This nursing home is ranked 27th out of 60 nursing homes we track in Washington for payroll % of net patient revenue. Shows payroll as a percentage of net patient revenue versus the Washington average, among facilities reporting a recent fiscal year. Below 25% may signal understaffing or heavy agency use — read with Staffing ratings. Communities with the same value for a metric share the same rank. Rankings compare like with like: every nursing home we track in Washington that reports data for that category. Nursing homes without available data are excluded, so the pool size varies from metric to metric.
Payroll rose $0.8M while revenue rose $0.5M. A low share can mean leaner staffing; check hours per resident in the staffing section.
FY 2024 scorecard
Each row shows the FY 2024 figure, the change since the prior report, the trend, and how it compares with Washington homes.
Revenue & profit
Losing money on care
| Metric | FY 2024 | vs prior year | Trend 2016 → 2024Trend | WA median | Compared with WA homesRank in WA | In short |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Net patient revenue What the home earns from resident care, after discounts and bad debt. | $7.7M | +$0.5M | Trend 20162024 | WA median $13.7M | Rank in WA Rank #52 / 60Net patient revenue — State benchmarked This nursing home is ranked 52nd out of 60 nursing homes we track in Washington for net patient revenue. Shows this facility's net patient revenue compared to the Washington average, among facilities reporting a recent fiscal year. Higher revenue generally means more resources for staffing and capital — read alongside Payroll %. Communities with the same value for a metric share the same rank. Rankings compare like with like: every nursing home we track in Washington that reports data for that category. Nursing homes without available data are excluded, so the pool size varies from metric to metric. Higher than 14% of homes | Below WA median Higher net patient revenue than 14% of WA homes that filed a recent report. Revenue mostly follows how big a home is. |
| Operating expenses Everything it costs to run the home: staff, supplies, rent, admin. | $8.6M | +$0.5M | Trend 20162024 | WA median $14.1M | Rank in WA Rank #52 / 60Operating expenses — State benchmarked This nursing home is ranked 52nd out of 60 nursing homes we track in Washington for operating expenses. Shows everything it cost to run the home — staff, supplies, rent, admin — compared with other Washington homes reporting a recent fiscal year. Expenses in dollars mostly follow how big a home is, so this compares size, not efficiency; read it next to operating margin. Communities with the same value for a metric share the same rank. Rankings compare like with like: every nursing home we track in Washington that reports data for that category. Nursing homes without available data are excluded, so the pool size varies from metric to metric. Higher than 14% of homes | Exceeds revenue Operating expenses are higher than net patient revenue, so resident care runs at a loss. |
| Net patient income Revenue minus operating expenses. Negative means care loses money. | −$0.9M | −$0.0M | Trend 20162024 | WA median −$0.2M | Rank in WA Rank #44 / 60Net patient income — State benchmarked This nursing home is ranked 44th out of 60 nursing homes we track in Washington for net patient income. Shows net patient revenue minus operating expenses, compared with other Washington homes reporting a recent fiscal year. Homes that lost money on care are in the pool too, so a rank in the bottom half usually means a loss. Communities with the same value for a metric share the same rank. Rankings compare like with like: every nursing home we track in Washington that reports data for that category. Nursing homes without available data are excluded, so the pool size varies from metric to metric. Higher than 27% of homes | Loss, widening Resident care lost money this year, more than in the prior report. |
| Operating margin Net patient income as a share of revenue. The clearest health signal. | −11.3% | +0.8 pts | Trend 20162024 | WA median −1.7% | Rank in WA Rank #47 / 60Operating margin — State benchmarked This nursing home is ranked 47th out of 60 nursing homes we track in Washington for operating margin. Shows net patient income as a share of net patient revenue, compared with other Washington homes reporting a recent fiscal year. Unlike the dollar figures it does not follow size, so it is the fairest comparison of financial health between a small home and a large one. Communities with the same value for a metric share the same rank. Rankings compare like with like: every nursing home we track in Washington that reports data for that category. Nursing homes without available data are excluded, so the pool size varies from metric to metric. Higher than 22% of homes | Loss A negative margin means resident care costs more than it earns. |
| Other income Money not from resident care: investments, grants, services. | $0.1M | — | Trend — | WA median $0.0M | Rank in WA Rank #22 / 58Other income — State benchmarked This nursing home is ranked 22nd out of 58 nursing homes we track in Washington for other income. Shows income from outside resident care — investments, grants, rentals, services — compared with other Washington homes reporting a recent fiscal year. It is not part of net patient revenue; a high rank here can offset a loss on care. Communities with the same value for a metric share the same rank. Rankings compare like with like: every nursing home we track in Washington that reports data for that category. Nursing homes without available data are excluded, so the pool size varies from metric to metric. Higher than 63% of homes | Offsets part of the loss Income from outside resident care covers part of the loss on care. |
| Net income The bottom line after other income. | −$0.8M | −$0.1M | Trend — | WA median −$0.0M | Rank in WA Rank #47 / 60Net income — State benchmarked This nursing home is ranked 47th out of 60 nursing homes we track in Washington for net income. Shows the bottom line after other income, compared with other Washington homes reporting a recent fiscal year. Homes with a net loss are in the pool too, so a rank in the bottom half usually means a loss. Communities with the same value for a metric share the same rank. Rankings compare like with like: every nursing home we track in Washington that reports data for that category. Nursing homes without available data are excluded, so the pool size varies from metric to metric. Higher than 22% of homes | Loss The bottom line is below zero even after other income. |
Staffing spend
Spends less of revenue on staff than most Washington homes
| Metric | FY 2024 | vs prior year | Trend 2016 → 2024Trend | WA median | Compared with WA homesRank in WA | In short |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Payroll costs Salaries and wage-related benefits, not counting contract labor. | $4.6M | +$0.8M | Trend 20162024 | WA median $8.4M | Rank in WA Rank #53 / 60Payroll costs — State benchmarked This nursing home is ranked 53rd out of 60 nursing homes we track in Washington for payroll costs. Shows total staff payroll — salaries plus wage-related benefits — benchmarked to the Washington average, among facilities reporting a recent fiscal year. Higher payroll relative to peers often signals better staffing and less reliance on contract labor. Communities with the same value for a metric share the same rank. Rankings compare like with like: every nursing home we track in Washington that reports data for that category. Nursing homes without available data are excluded, so the pool size varies from metric to metric. Higher than 12% of homes | Below WA median Higher payroll than 12% of WA homes. Payroll in dollars mostly follows how big a home is, so this compares size, not staffing levels. |
| Payroll share of revenue Payroll divided by revenue. Higher usually means more staff per resident. | 60.2% | +6.2 pts | Trend 20162024 | WA median 58.9% | Rank in WA Rank #27 / 60Payroll % of net patient revenue — State benchmarked This nursing home is ranked 27th out of 60 nursing homes we track in Washington for payroll % of net patient revenue. Shows payroll as a percentage of net patient revenue versus the Washington average, among facilities reporting a recent fiscal year. Below 25% may signal understaffing or heavy agency use — read with Staffing ratings. Communities with the same value for a metric share the same rank. Rankings compare like with like: every nursing home we track in Washington that reports data for that category. Nursing homes without available data are excluded, so the pool size varies from metric to metric. Higher than 56% of homes | 4.2 pts under WA average The WA average is 64.4% of revenue. Within 3 points of it reads as near the average. |
Charts, 2016–2024 2 charts · WA benchmark drawn as a dashed line
Revenue, expenses and income
What the home earned from resident care (net patient revenue), what it cost to run (operating expenses) and the difference between the two (net patient income), for each fiscal year it filed a CMS cost report.
USD, millions
Net patient revenue Operating expenses Net patient income No report
Where revenue goes
Both lines are a share of net patient revenue. Payroll share is what goes to salaries and wage-related benefits; operating margin is what is left after every operating cost (below 0%, resident care lost money). The dashed line is the Washington payroll average.
% of net patient revenue
Payroll share Operating margin WA payroll average No report
Year-by-year data, 2016–2024 every reported year · latest first, scroll sideways
| Metric | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019no report | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Net patient revenue | $6.3M | $6.5M | $6.5M | $6.7M | $6.2M | $6.9M | $7.2M | $7.7M | |
| Operating expenses | $5.3M | $5.9M | $6.4M | $7.0M | $7.1M | $7.3M | $8.0M | $8.6M | |
| Net patient income | $0.9M | $0.6M | $0.1M | −$0.3M | −$0.9M | −$0.4M | −$0.9M | −$0.9M | |
| Operating margin | 15.1% | 9.2% | 1.8% | −4.5% | −14.3% | −6.3% | −12.0% | −11.3% | |
| Net income | $1.1M | $0.7M | $0.2M | $0.1M | −$0.7M | −$0.3M | −$0.7M | −$0.8M | |
| Payroll costs | $3.2M | $3.6M | $4.1M | $3.7M | $3.5M | $3.7M | $3.9M | $4.6M | |
| Payroll share of revenue | 51.4% | 55.7% | 62.9% | 55.0% | 56.8% | 54.3% | 54.0% | 60.2% | |
| Beds | 43 | 43 | 43 | 43 | 43 | 43 | 43 | 43 | |
| Gross revenue | $6.3M | $6.5M | $6.5M | $6.7M | $6.2M | $6.9M | $10.5M | $11.1M | |
| Salaries | $2.7M | $3.0M | $3.4M | $3.1M | $2.9M | $3.1M | $3.3M | $3.9M | |
| Wage-related costs | $0.5M | $0.6M | $0.7M | $0.6M | $0.6M | $0.7M | $0.6M | $0.7M | |
| Contract labor | $0.0M | $0.1M | $0.0M | $1.3M | $1.3M | $1.5M | $1.6M | $1.1M | |
| Other operating costs | $2.1M | $2.3M | $2.3M | $3.3M | $3.6M | $3.6M | $4.2M | $3.9M | |
| Net patient revenue per day | $449 | $453 | $472 | $526 | $532 | $539 | $532 | $550 | |
| Cost per day | $381 | $411 | $463 | $549 | $608 | $573 | $596 | $612 | |
| Average length of stay | 156.6 days | — | — | 129.5 days | — | — | 83.1 days | 95.7 days |
Showing 2024–2022 · scroll sideways for 6 earlier years
Earlier and partial years are in the download. Download CSV
Who this home usually serves
Residents split by who pays for their care: Medicare, Medicaid, or private pay and other sources.
Over a year: CMS SNF Cost Report, FY2024
Snapshot: CMS Long-Term Care Facility Characteristics (quarterly), Sep 2026
Resident snapshot
38 residents · Sep 2026
Residents counted on the date of the latest CMS report, which updates quarterly.
Medicare
13 · 34%
Medicaid
8 · 21%
Private pay & other
17 · 45%
Leaving
146 discharges · FY2024
Residents discharged during the year.
Medicare
146 · 100%
Medicaid
0 · 0%
Private pay & other
0 · 0%
Living Spaces & Floor Plans for Covenant Living at the Shores
Places of interest near Covenant Living at the Shores
1.2 miles from city center
Estimated distance in miles from Mercer Island's city center to Covenant Living at the Shores's address, calculated via Google Maps.
Calculate Travel Distance to Covenant Living at the Shores
Add your location
Compare Nursing Homes around King County
Info below is compiled from CMS reports & the WA Dept. of Social & Health Services (DSHS), senior community websites & trusted data sources such as Walk Score & BBB.
Communities are listed from highest-ranked to lowest-ranked based on our methodology.
The facility name. Click to view the full profile page on Assisted Living Magazine, including photos, services, and contact info.
|
CMS (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the federal agency that regulates nursing homes) Overall 5-star rating — a composite of Health Inspection, Staffing, and Quality Measures scores. 5 stars = top 10% nationally. 1 star = bottom 10%. The single most important number to start with when comparing facilities.
|
Care Types in This Table
AL (Assisted Living):
Housing with help for daily activities like bathing, dressing, and medication, without 24-hour skilled nursing.
NH (Nursing Home):
24/7 skilled nursing care for residents with complex, ongoing medical needs.
SNF (Skilled Nursing Facility):
Round-the-clock nursing care, often for recovery after surgery, injury, or illness.
MC (Memory Care):
Secured, specialized care for people living with Alzheimer's or dementia.
RC (Respite Care):
Short-term temporary care that gives family caregivers a break.
HOS (Hospice Care):
Comfort-focused care for those with a terminal illness, prioritizing quality of life over treatment.
PC (Palliative Care):
Comfort-focused care for serious illness at any stage, including alongside curative treatment.
CCRC (Continuing Care Retirement Community):
A campus with multiple care levels so residents can age in place without moving.
|
Neighborhood or city area where the facility is located. Proximity to family, hospitals, and green space matters for both quality of life and ease of visitation. Consider drive time and transit access when evaluating location.
|
Licensed bed capacity. Larger facilities (300+ beds) often have more specialized programs but can feel institutional. Smaller homes (under 150 beds) tend to deliver more personalized care. Compare with Avg Res/Day to understand how full the facility typically runs.
|
A 0–100 score of a facility's regulatory inspection record, shown as a letter and compared with other facilities of the same kind in the same state. This is a proprietary Assisted Living Magazine grade. It is not a government rating. A dash means we have no inspection data for that facility.
|
Percentage of licensed beds filled on an average day. Color indicates financial health: green (90%+) = operationally strong, typically profitable. Amber (80–89%) = stable but leaving revenue on the table. Orange (70–79%) = financial strain likely, may struggle with fixed costs. Red (<70%) = significant distress, closure or ownership change risk increases sharply.
|
This facility's occupancy rate compared to the statewide average for similar facilities. A positive number means above-average demand. Facilities running 5%+ above the state average are typically the most sought-after in their market — a strong proxy for reputation.
|
CMS-adjusted total nurse hours per resident per day (RN + LPN + CNA combined). The national average is approximately 3.5 hrs. Higher is better — more direct care time per resident. Below 3.0 is a red flag. CMS weights RN hours more heavily because RNs handle complex clinical decisions that CNAs cannot.
|
CMS Health Inspection star rating (1–5 stars), based on the 3 most recent annual state surveys plus any complaint investigations. This is the hardest rating to manipulate — it reflects real surveyor findings on-site. 5 stars = fewest deficiencies found. 1 star = most. It carries the heaviest weight in the Overall CMS rating.
|
CMS Staffing star rating (1–5 stars), based on daily nurse staffing hours submitted to CMS via verified payroll data. Compares RN, LPN, and CNA coverage relative to resident acuity level. 5 stars = well above expected staffing. Weekend staffing is evaluated separately, as that's where many facilities quietly reduce coverage.
|
CMS Quality Measures star rating (1–5 stars), based on 15 clinical outcome metrics including fall rates, pressure ulcers, antipsychotic drug use, and hospital readmissions. Captures actual resident health outcomes, not just compliance. High QM combined with low Health Inspection scores can indicate a facility with strong care but weak documentation practices.
|
Registered Nurse hours per resident/day compared to the statewide average. RNs are the highest-skilled nursing staff — they assess residents, manage medications, and respond to emergencies. A value of +50% means RN coverage is 50% above the state norm. Negative values are a concern for residents with complex or acute medical needs.
|
Total nursing staff hours (RN + LPN + CNA combined) per resident/day vs. the statewide average. A broader measure than RN vs State — it captures the entire care team. A facility can have high total staffing but low RN hours, meaning more aides and fewer nurses. Read both columns together for the full picture.
|
Total dollar amount of federal monetary fines (civil money penalties) issued by CMS in the past 3 years. Fines are only levied for serious violations — typically actual harm to residents, repeated uncorrected deficiencies, or systemic non-compliance. Even a single fine is noteworthy. Multiple fines strongly suggest a pattern, not isolated incidents.
|
Total health deficiency citations from the most recent standard inspection cycle. Minor citations (scope A–C) are common and often administrative in nature. Higher counts aren't always disqualifying, but should be read alongside Severe Citations to understand actual harm levels. Under 10 is strong for a large facility; 30+ warrants a closer look.
|
Average deficiency citations per CMS inspection (survey) in the reporting window — total citations divided by the number of inspections. Lower is better; compare alongside total Citations and Severe Citations for context.
|
Citations at CMS scope/severity level G or higher — G–I means actual harm occurred; J–L means residents were placed in immediate jeopardy. (D–F is potential for harm only). Examples include unaddressed falls, medication errors causing injury, neglect, or abuse.
|
Average number of residents in the building on any given day, derived from annual census data. Reflects true operating scale — a 400-bed facility running 200 residents/day operates very differently from one at 390. Higher resident counts generally mean more funded staffing hours.
|
Better Business Bureau rating (A+ to F). Reflects complaint history, business transparency, and how family disputes were resolved. A+ means no significant unresolved complaints. A blank (—) means the facility isn't BBB-accredited, which is common for healthcare providers and not necessarily a negative signal.
|
Walk Score® (0–100). Measures walkability of the surrounding area. 90–100 = Walker's Paradise. 70–89 = Very Walkable. 50–69 = Somewhat Walkable. Below 50 = Car-Dependent. Higher scores benefit family visitors, resident outings, and staff commuting.
|
The licensed owner or operator of record filed with CMS — the individual or organization legally accountable for the facility. Searching the operator name across other facilities can reveal chain or multi-site ownership, which matters: chain-operated homes tend to have more variable quality outcomes than independently run facilities.
|
What the home actually collects for resident care, after contractual allowances, bad debt and discounts — not gross billings. Taken from the latest complete annual cost report, so it is comparable across homes reporting the same period. Revenue alone doesn't indicate care quality, but it funds staffing and capital reinvestment. Pair with Payroll %. Figures are from each facility's most recent complete fiscal year — hover a value for the exact year; a * marks homes that report an older period than most facilities.
|
Staff salaries plus wage-related benefits from the latest complete annual cost report. Contract and agency labour is counted separately, under other operating costs, so a home leaning on agency staff can show a low figure here. Payroll is the cost most directly tied to care quality — compare with Payroll % for full context. Figures are from each facility's most recent complete fiscal year — hover a value for the exact year; a * marks homes that report an older period than most facilities.
|
Payroll as a share of NET PATIENT REVENUE (not gross revenue). Both figures come from the same cost-report year. A higher figure means more of each revenue dollar goes to staff pay. Read with the Staffing star rating to judge whether spend translates into coverage — and note that homes whose patient revenue covers only part of their operation can read implausibly high. The Washington average is: 64.4% Figures are from each facility's most recent complete fiscal year — hover a value for the exact year; a * marks homes that report an older period than most facilities.
|
CMS Certification Number: the unique federal identifier for this skilled nursing provider.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Covenant Living at the Shores | NH AL CCRC MC SNF | Mercer Island | 93
Facility
93
WA AVG
103
Rank
#47 / 69 | A |
76.0%
Facility
76.0%
WA AVG
77.5%
Rank
#31 / 56 | -2% | 4.96
Facility
4.96
WA AVG
4.41
Rank
#8 / 59 | +15% | +12% | $0
Facility
$0
WA AVG
$82.6k
Rank
#1 / 61 | 35
Facility
35
WA AVG
49.9
Rank
#21 / 61 | 11.7
Facility
11.7
WA AVG
6.2
Rank
#56 / 61 | - | 38 | - |
18
Facility
18
WA AVG
51
Rank
#73 / 80 | - | $7.7MFiscal year ending 09/2024
Facility
$7.7MFiscal year ending 09/2024
WA AVG
$16.6M
Rank
#52 / 60 | $4.6MFiscal year ending 09/2024
Facility
$4.6MFiscal year ending 09/2024
WA AVG
$10.1M
Rank
#53 / 60 | 60.2%Fiscal year ending 09/2024
Facility
60.2%Fiscal year ending 09/2024
WA AVG
64.4%
Rank
#27 / 60 | 505504 | ||||
| Renton Health and Rehabilitation | NH HOS MC PC RC SNF | Renton | 99
Facility
99
WA AVG
103
Rank
#42 / 69 | C |
78.3%
Facility
78.3%
WA AVG
77.5%
Rank
#26 / 56 | +1% | 4.24
Facility
4.24
WA AVG
4.41
Rank
#26 / 59 | +7% | -4% | $77.1k
Facility
$77.1k
WA AVG
$82.6k
Rank
#50 / 61 | 61
Facility
61
WA AVG
49.9
Rank
#44 / 61 | 10.2
Facility
10.2
WA AVG
6.2
Rank
#54 / 61 | 1 | 78 | - |
83
Facility
83
WA AVG
51
Rank
#8 / 80 | - | $12.6MFiscal year ending 12/2024
Facility
$12.6MFiscal year ending 12/2024
WA AVG
$16.6M
Rank
#36 / 60 | $7.7MFiscal year ending 12/2024
Facility
$7.7MFiscal year ending 12/2024
WA AVG
$10.1M
Rank
#36 / 60 | 61.1%Fiscal year ending 12/2024
Facility
61.1%Fiscal year ending 12/2024
WA AVG
64.4%
Rank
#26 / 60 | 505280 |
Rank badges are statewide and care-type specific: each nursing home is ranked against every other WA nursing home we track that reports that metric, not just the 2 on this page. See how we rank facilities
Financial assistance
Get financial aid guidance Programs that may help with care and living costs in Washington State
Covenant Living at the Shores is in Mercer Island, Washington State. These programs may support different care settings or living expenses. A listing does not confirm this community participates; our concierge team can help confirm.
VA Aid and Attendance (A&A) and Housebound Benefits
Washington VA Aid and Attendance/Housebound
- Who it is for
- Veterans or survivors with VA pension eligibility and an Aid and Attendance or Housebound medical need
- Income limit
- Countable income must be below the applicable Maximum Annual Pension Rate (MAPR); the rate depends on dependents and benefit category; Qualifying unreimbursed medical expenses may reduce countable income.
- Asset limit
- VA pension net-worth limit is $163,699 from December 1 2025 through November 30 2026; net worth includes countable assets and annual income under VA rules.
Eligibility
- General
- Additional pension benefits for qualifying Veterans or survivors who satisfy VA pension eligibility and the medical requirements for Aid and Attendance or Housebound status; being an older veteran or spouse alone does not qualify.
- WA specifics
- This is a federal VA benefit rather than a state-specific grant; Aid and Attendance and Housebound benefits cannot be received together.
What it provides
- Increased monthly VA pension based on the applicable MAPR less countable income.
WA Cares Fund
Washington WA Cares Fund
Eligibility
- General
- Washington residents age 18 or older who have earned WA Cares benefits through qualifying contributions and need help with at least three daily activities for at least 90 days as determined by the program.
- WA specifics
- Statewide benefits began July 1 2026. Full benefits can be earned after three qualifying years within the preceding six years or ten qualifying years; workers born before 1968 may qualify for partial benefits. A qualifying year requires at least 500 covered work hours. Services must come from registered WA Cares providers.
What it provides
- Approved beneficiaries may use earned benefits for in-home care or eligible facility care.
- Covered supports may include home modifications and adaptive equipment or paying a qualifying family caregiver.
- The full lifetime benefit is up to $36,500 in 2026 and partial benefits depend on qualifying years.
Medicaid Personal Care (MPC)
Washington Medicaid Personal Care (MPC)
Eligibility
- General
- Washington residents eligible for noninstitutional categorically needy Apple Health or its alternative benefit plan who meet the MPC functional assessment and do not require an institutional level of care.
- WA specifics
- MPC differs from Community First Choice and COPES. Personal care can be authorized at home or in eligible adult family homes and assisted living facilities contracted for adult residential care. Financial eligibility follows the qualifying Apple Health coverage category.
What it provides
- Authorized personal-care help with daily activities.
- Assessment-based nursing support may also be available when not already provided through another resource.
Community Options Program Entry System (COPES)
WA Medicaid COPES
- Income limit
- COPES financial eligibility is program-specific.
Eligibility
- General
- COPES is a Washington Medicaid home/community long-term-care program requiring qualifying functional needs and financial eligibility.
- WA specifics
- DSHS long-term-care manual includes current COPES guidance; assessment and authorized service plan govern individual services.
What it provides
- Authorized home/community long-term services and supports.
Washington Family Caregiver Support Program
WA NFCSP
Eligibility
- General
- Washington supports unpaid family caregivers of adults; program-specific assessment and local eligibility determine services.
- WA specifics
- Local family caregiver support programs provide assessment and resources.
What it provides
- Caregiver information training counseling and respite may be available based on assessment and local funding.
Community First Choice (CFC)
Washington Community First Choice
- Income limit
- Medicaid financial eligibility depends on the applicant coverage group.
Eligibility
- General
- Community First Choice is a Medicaid state-plan home/community service option for eligible people with qualifying functional needs; it is not restricted to age 65 or older.
- WA specifics
- CFC is a state-plan option rather than the COPES waiver; assessment and person-centered service planning apply.
What it provides
- Approved personal assistance and related community supports based on assessment.
Older Americans Act (OAA) Services
Washington OAA Services
- Who it is for
- Adults 60+ looking for meals, in-home help or other local aging services
- Income limit
- OAA nutrition services have no income means test; priority is directed to people with greatest economic or social need.
- Asset limit
- OAA nutrition eligibility is not asset-tested.
Eligibility
- General
- Older Americans Act supportive and nutrition services generally serve adults age 60 or older; individual services can have additional criteria and specified exceptions.
- WA specifics
- Services are subject to local availability and funding; the OAA does not guarantee an individual entitlement.
What it provides
- Locally available nutrition and supportive services may include meals and in-home assistance.
Medicare Savings Program (MSP)
Washington Medicare Savings Program
- Who it is for
- Medicare beneficiaries with limited income who need help with premiums or cost sharing
- Income limit
- QMB countable income at or below 110% FPL; SLMB over 110% through 120%; QI-1 over 120% through 138%; Household and income-counting methods can change the determination.
- Asset limit
- Washington Medicare Savings Programs do not require a resource test.
Eligibility
- General
- Meet Washington general eligibility plus Medicare Part A entitlement or qualifying SSA Low-Income Subsidy enrollment under current state rule.
- WA specifics
- QDWI has separate under-65 employment disability and income rules; QI-1 is subject to federal funding and cannot be combined with Medicaid.
What it provides
- QMB pays Medicare premiums and applicable cost sharing; SLMB and QI-1 pay Part B premiums; QDWI pays Part A premiums.
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)
Washington LIHEAP
- Who it is for
- Income-eligible households responsible for home heating or energy costs
- Income limit
- Depends on household size under current state guidelines.
Eligibility
- General
- Washington household meeting LIHEAP net-income and other eligibility criteria; local providers determine eligibility.
- WA specifics
- Assistance depends on income household size home heating costs and local funding; eligible repair and replacement supports can be available.
What it provides
- Eligible home-energy costs and certain unsafe heating or cooling system repair/replacement.
Senior Citizens Property Tax Exemption
Washington Senior Property Tax Exemption
- Income limit
- Combined disposable-income threshold depends on county and tax year.
Eligibility
- General
- Eligible Washington homeowners age 61 or older or meeting qualifying disability/veteran criteria; ownership principal-residence and income rules apply.
- WA specifics
- Apply through county assessor using the applicable tax-year county thresholds; Exemption and tax-deferral programs have distinct rules.
What it provides
- Qualifying reduction of property tax based on county income tier and exempt levies.
Know before you visit
Frequently Asked Questions about Covenant Living at the Shores
Quick answers from public records and the community's own listing.01 Is Covenant Living at the Shores in a walkable area?
Covenant Living at the Shores has a walk score of 18. Car-dependent. Most errands require a car, with limited nearby walkable options.
02 What is the license number of Covenant Living at the Shores?
According to WA state health department records, Covenant Living at the Shores's license number is 958.
03 What is the occupancy rate at Covenant Living at the Shores?
Covenant Living at the Shores's occupancy is 76%.
04 How long has Covenant Living at the Shores been in business?
Covenant Living at the Shores has been operating for approximately 31 years, based on available licensing and registration records.
05 Does Covenant Living at the Shores have different floorplan options?
Yes — see the floorplan options available at Covenant Living at the Shores on this page.
06 Are pets allowed at Covenant Living at the Shores?
No, Covenant Living at the Shores has a no-pet policy.
07 Does Covenant Living at the Shores operate as a for-profit or non-profit?
Covenant Living at the Shores is registered as a non-profit in WA.
Updated on
