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.
112
110 employees · 2 contractors · 41 on an average day Sharon Care Center
Nursing Home, Assisted Living, Memory Care & Skilled Nursing · Centralia, WA
CMS overall rating
3/5
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.
3/5
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.
Sharon Care Center
Nursing Home, Assisted Living, Memory Care & Skilled Nursing · Centralia, WA
CMS overall rating
3/5
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.
3/5
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.
Sharon Care Center accepts Medicaid, Medicare, and private pay.
Sharon Care Center is a nursing home in Centralia, WA, that offers assisted living, memory care, and skilled nursing. The community ensures older adults are well-cared for in its supportive and welcoming environment. 24-hour care, three well-balanced meals, and weekly housekeeping are among the many activities provided to help improve residents’ living experiences. With its dedication to residents’ welfare, the community continuously provides individualized care to meet their needs and preferences.
Holiday events, volunteer programs, and outings are among the enrichment activities dedicated to residents’ leisure and wellness. Physical, occupational, and speech therapy are also available to help residents recover and return to their routines quickly. Residents also have quick access to their necessities and travel, as bus stops, retail stores, and restaurants are available nearby. This nursing home has a comprehensive care option, making it one of the best choices for senior living in Washington.
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: Q4 2025 (October 1 – December 31, 2025).
Headcount, shifts and contractors: CMS Payroll-Based Journal (PBJ).
Resident count: CMS Long-Term Care Facility Characteristics (data as of Jun 2026).
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.
112
110 employees · 2 contractors · 41 on an average day
112 total staff / 30 residents. Residents: CMS Long-Term Care Facility Characteristics (data as of Jun 2026); staff: CMS Payroll-Based Journal (Q4 2025).Residents and staff come from two different CMS releases, so the two counts can be a few months apart.
3.73 : 1
↑ 107% · WA 1.80This facility: 3.73 staff per resident, 107% above the Washington average of 1.80 (among Washington facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
112 staff ÷ 30 residents
See full Washington ranking →
Average hours one staff member works on a day they are on shift, across every role.
7.1 h
↓ 11% · WA 8 hThis facility: 7.1 h, 11% below 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.
26,881 staff hours this quarter
See full Washington ranking →99.5% of staff hours were worked by the facility's own employees
Washington average: 93.8% · Contractors this quarter: Occupational Therapy Aide (1), Medical Director (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.
72
Rank #45 / 69Bed count — State benchmarked This nursing home is ranked 45th 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.
72
Rank #45 / 69Bed count — State benchmarked This nursing home is ranked 45th 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.
Walk Score
Car-dependent. A few nearby services may be reachable on foot, but most trips require transportation.
Rank #40 / 80Walk Score — State benchmarked This nursing home is ranked 40th 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. A few nearby services may be reachable on foot, but most trips require transportation.
Rank #40 / 80Walk Score — State benchmarked This nursing home is ranked 40th 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.
49
/ 100
Occupancy rate
Occupancy higher than 95% suggests steady demand, but availability may be limited.
Rank #1 / 56Occupancy rate — State benchmarked This nursing home is ranked 1st 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 higher than 95% suggests steady demand, but availability may be limited.
Rank #1 / 56Occupancy rate — State benchmarked This nursing home is ranked 1st 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.
100%
This home is often near full
Higher than the Washington average: 77.6%
Residents per day (avg)
The average number of residents living at this facility on a given day. CMS calculates this figure from the facility's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments and uses this value for other measures like Hours Per Resident Per Day (HPRD) and 5-Star Staffing rating.
The average number of residents living at this facility on a given day. CMS calculates this figure from the facility's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments and uses this value for other measures like Hours Per Resident Per Day (HPRD) and 5-Star Staffing rating.
35
Source: CMS Provider Information, average daily residents
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.
55
days
About This Community
Facility TypeBoarding Home
CountyLewis
License Number1428
CMS Certification Number505429
Resident Council
ContactJymmie L. Reed (per state records, record updated Jul 2026)
Outpatient Therapy
Physical Therapy
Occupational Therapy
Speech TherapyListed as: Speech and language therapy
Monthly Wellness Visits by Licensed Nurse
IV Therapy
Tube Feeding
Wound Care Therapies
Oxygen Services
Diabetes Management
Coumadin Monitoring and Therapy
Trach Management Care
Ostomy CareCare for a stoma and the attached pouch after surgery, such as for a colostomy or ileostomy. Proper care helps prevent skin problems and infection.
Pain Management
DietitianListed as: Dietary services reviewed by registered dietitian
Resident & Family Meetings
Wellness Programs
Laundry & LinenListed as: Weekly personal laundry
Housekeeping
Pets Allowed
Activities
Creative Activities
Learning Activities
Resident-Sponsored Clubs
Excursions
Gardening
Sing-Alongs
Sunday Services
Building Type2st.
Room Types
Private Room
This profile shows two inspection records, and their totals often differ. Inspection History and the Inspection Scorecard below are state data — the figures the state publishes and the state inspection reports we hold on file — covering the entire facility. CMS Health Inspection History covers only this home's Medicare and Medicaid-certified nursing beds, from federal certification surveys.
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 2022 · 4 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. 10 deficiencies 9 inspections
Includes all inspection records for this property, which could include management/ownership changes. 10 deficiencies 9 inspections
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 2022 vs. Washington state average
Overall vs. WA average
0 Worse
No metrics in this bucket.
2 Better
Metrics better than Washington average:
• Total deficiencies (64% below)
• Deficiencies per inspection (65% below)
• Total deficiencies (64% below)
• Deficiencies per inspection (65% below)
Deficiencies
| This Facility | WA Average | vs. WA Avg |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Total deficiencies
Formal regulatory issues recorded by inspectors across all inspection types.
| 10 | 28.0 | This facility has 64% fewer total deficiencies than a typical Washington nursing home (10 vs. WA avg 28).↓ 64% better |
|
Deficiencies per inspection
Average deficiencies per inspection.
| 1.1 | 3.1 | This facility has 65% fewer deficiencies per inspection than a typical Washington nursing home (1.1 vs. WA avg 3.1).↓ 65% better |
Inspections
| This Facility | WA Average | vs. WA Avg |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Total inspections
Combined count of all inspections conducted at this facility.
| 9 | 9.0 | This facility has total inspections in line with the Washington average (9 vs. WA avg 9).— At avg |
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
4
↓ 54% · WA 8.7This facility: 4, 54% below the Washington average of 8.7 (among Washington facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Total health citations
36
Rank #23 / 61Health citations — State benchmarked This nursing home is ranked 23rd 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.↓ 27% · WA 49.6This facility: 36, 27% below the Washington average of 49.6 (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
9
Rank #51 / 61Citations per inspection — State benchmarked This nursing home is ranked 51st 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.↑ 46% · WA 6.18This facility: 9, 46% 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
36 of 36 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 1.8This facility: 0, 100% below the Washington average of 1.8 (among Washington facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Actual harm
Moderate
D–F
35
↓ 26% · WA 47.1This facility: 35, 26% below the Washington average of 47.1 (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
1
↑ 100% · WA 0.5This facility: 1, 100% above 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: Dec 01, 2025 · 1 citation (Quality of Care, moderate), corrected
Most cited category: Resident Rights, 10 of 36 citations · 9 categories in total
Citations history
Most recent first
Dec 01, 2025
1 citation
Quality of Care moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Sep 12, 2025
9 citations
Abuse/Neglect moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Environmental moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Nutrition moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Quality of Care moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Quality of Care moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Care Planning moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Care Planning moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Care Planning moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Resident Rights minor citation
Corrected
Corrected
Sep 13, 2024
8 citations
Abuse/Neglect moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Administration moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Infection Control moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Quality of Care moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Care Planning moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Care Planning moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Resident Rights moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Resident Rights moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Jul 21, 2023
18 citations
Abuse/Neglect moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Infection Control moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Nutrition moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Pharmacy moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Pharmacy 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
Care Planning moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Care Planning 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
Resident Rights moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Resident Rights moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Resident Rights moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Resident Rights moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Top deficiency categories
Share of 36 citations
Resident Rights
10 deficiencies (28%)
Resident Assessment & Care Planning
8 deficiencies (22%)
Quality of Life & Care
7 deficiencies (19%)
Abuse, Neglect & Exploitation
3 deficiencies (8%)
Infection Control
2 deficiencies (6%)
Nutrition & Dietary
2 deficiencies (6%)
Pharmacy Services
2 deficiencies (6%)
Administration
1 deficiency (3%)
Environmental
1 deficiency (3%)
How citations are counted
Health citations are formal notices following inspections when they fail to comply with safety and care standards.
35 of 36 citations resulted from standard inspections; and 1 of 36 resulted from complaint investigations.
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 Aug 2026
No penalties in the past 3 years
No civil money penalties or payment denials on record since Aug 2023.
Total fines
$0
WA avg $87KWashington average: $86,517. Average among the 121 Washington facilities with a penalty on record.US avg $67KUS average: $67,417, among the 6,775 US facilities with a penalty on record.
Number of fines
0
WA avg 1.93Washington average: 1.93. Average among the 121 Washington facilities with a penalty on record.US avg 1.96US average: 1.96, among the 6,775 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 0.26Washington average: 0.26. Average among the 121 Washington facilities with a penalty on record.US avg 0.36US average: 0.36, among the 6,775 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
↑ 40% · WA 3.6This facility: 5.0, 40% above the WA average of 3.6 (among WA facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
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.
3
/ 5
Average
↓ 17% · WA 3.6This facility: 3.0, 17% below the WA average of 3.6 (among WA facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
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.
7.0
Score · lower is better
↓ 19% · WA 8.5This facility: 7.0, 19% below the WA average of 8.5 (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.
21.3
Score · lower is better
↑ 18% · WA 18.0This facility: 21.3, 18% above the WA average of 18.0 (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: 4 better, 4 worse, 1 near WA average
8 short-stay measures: 4 better, 1 worse, 3 compared with US only
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
5.1%
↓ 64% · WA 14.2This facility: 5.1, 64% below the WA average of 14.2 (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 whose need for help with daily activities has increased
5.1%
↓ 64% · WA 14.2This facility: 5.1, 64% below the WA average of 14.2 (among WA facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Bowel or bladder incontinence (low-risk residents)
Percent of low risk long-stay residents who lose control of their bowels or bladder
37.4%
↑ 66% · WA 22.5This facility: 37.4, 66% above the WA average of 22.5 (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
37.4%
↑ 66% · WA 22.5This facility: 37.4, 66% above the WA average of 22.5 (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
0.0%
↓ 100% · WA 1.6This facility: 0.0, 100% below the WA average of 1.6 (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 with a urinary tract infection
0.0%
↓ 100% · WA 1.6This facility: 0.0, 100% below the WA average of 1.6 (among WA facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Falls with major injury
Percent of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury
5.7%
↑ 119% · WA 2.6This facility: 5.7, 119% above 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
5.7%
↑ 119% · WA 2.6This facility: 5.7, 119% above 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
2.4%
↓ 45% · WA 4.3This facility: 2.4, 45% below the WA average of 4.3 (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 long-stay high risk residents with pressure ulcers
2.4%
↓ 45% · WA 4.3This facility: 2.4, 45% below the WA average of 4.3 (among WA facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.Physical & mental health
Lost too much weight
Percent of long-stay residents who lose too much weight
14.6%
↑ 165% · WA 5.5This facility: 14.6, 165% above the WA average of 5.5 (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
14.6%
↑ 165% · WA 5.5This facility: 14.6, 165% above the WA average of 5.5 (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
65.3%
↑ 269% · WA 17.7This facility: 65.3, 269% above the WA average of 17.7 (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 who have depressive symptoms
65.3%
↑ 269% · WA 17.7This facility: 65.3, 269% above the WA average of 17.7 (among WA facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Antipsychotic use
Percent of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication
9.4%
↓ 38% · WA 15.1This facility: 9.4, 38% below the WA average of 15.1 (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
9.4%
↓ 38% · WA 15.1This facility: 9.4, 38% below the WA average of 15.1 (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 96.0This facility: 100.0, 4% above the WA average of 96.0 (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 assessed and appropriately given the pneumococcal vaccine
100.0%
↑ 4% · WA 96.0This facility: 100.0, 4% above the WA average of 96.0 (among WA facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.Short-stay residents
Rehab and recovery after a hospital stay · 8 measures
Daily care & independence
Able to care for self at discharge
Percentage of residents at or above expected ability to care for themselves at discharge.
36.9%
↓ 31% · US 53.7This facility: 36.9, 31% below the US average of 53.7 (among US facilities reporting a recent figure).
Percentage of residents at or above expected ability to care for themselves at discharge.
36.9%
↓ 31% · US 53.7This facility: 36.9, 31% below the US average of 53.7 (among US facilities reporting a recent figure).
Returned home or to the community
Rate of successful return to home or community from a skilled nursing facility.
67.7%
↑ 34% · US 50.6This facility: 67.7, 34% above the US average of 50.6 (among US facilities reporting a recent figure).
Rate of successful return to home or community from a skilled nursing facility.
67.7%
↑ 34% · US 50.6This facility: 67.7, 34% above the US average of 50.6 (among US facilities reporting a recent figure).Safety & clinical stability
Falls with major injury
Percentage of SNF residents who experience falls with major injury during their stay.
1.3%
↑ 69% · US 0.8This facility: 1.3, 69% above the US average of 0.8 (among US facilities reporting a recent figure).
Percentage of SNF residents who experience falls with major injury during their stay.
1.3%
↑ 69% · US 0.8This facility: 1.3, 69% above the US average of 0.8 (among US facilities reporting a recent figure).Physical & mental health
New antipsychotic medication
Percent of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication
0.9%
↓ 30% · WA 1.3This facility: 0.9, 30% 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
0.9%
↓ 30% · WA 1.3This facility: 0.9, 30% 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
100.0%
↑ 13% · WA 88.3This facility: 100.0, 13% above the WA average of 88.3 (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 assessed and appropriately given the pneumococcal vaccine
100.0%
↑ 13% · WA 88.3This facility: 100.0, 13% above the WA average of 88.3 (among WA facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Flu vaccine
Percent of short-stay residents assessed and appropriately given the seasonal influenza vaccine
98.0%
↑ 20% · WA 82.0This facility: 98.0, 20% above the WA average of 82.0 (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 short-stay residents assessed and appropriately given the seasonal influenza vaccine
98.0%
↑ 20% · WA 82.0This facility: 98.0, 20% above the WA average of 82.0 (among WA facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.Hospital & emergency visits
Re-hospitalized after admission
Percentage of short-stay residents who were re-hospitalized after their nursing home admission.
26.8%
↑ 35% · WA 19.9This facility: 26.8, 35% above the WA average of 19.9 (among WA facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Percentage of short-stay residents who were re-hospitalized after their nursing home admission.
26.8%
↑ 35% · WA 19.9This facility: 26.8, 35% above the WA average of 19.9 (among WA facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
ER visits
Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit.
12.0%
↓ 9% · WA 13.2This facility: 12.0, 9% below the WA average of 13.2 (among WA facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit.
12.0%
↓ 9% · WA 13.2This facility: 12.0, 9% below the WA average of 13.2 (among WA facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.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. Grey compares with the US average only, because CMS publishes no state figure. 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.
Sharon Care Center’s finances from its CMS cost report for the fiscal year ending December 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 Dec 2024
Is it financially stable?
Losing money on care, but less than last year
−7.3% operating margin
+1.1 pts vs prior year
An operating loss in 8 of the last 8 reported years. Other income ($0.0M) trims the net loss to −$0.7M. Watch for cost-cutting that reaches staffing.
Does it invest in staff?
Payroll in line with Washington homes
67.3% payroll share of revenue
WA average 64.4%Rank #12 / 60Payroll % of net patient revenue — State benchmarked This nursing home is ranked 12th 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 $0.4M while revenue rose $0.1M. Check hours per resident in the staffing section to confirm it reaches the floor.
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 2017 → 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. | $10.1M | +$0.1M | Trend 20172024 | WA median $13.7M | Rank in WA Rank #49 / 60Net patient revenue — State benchmarked This nursing home is ranked 49th 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 19% of homes | Below WA median Higher net patient revenue than 19% 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. | $10.8M | +$0.0M | Trend 20172024 | WA median — | Rank in WA Not ranked | 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. | −$0.7M | +$0.1M | Trend 20172024 | WA median — | Rank in WA Not ranked | Loss, narrowing Resident care lost money this year, less than in the prior report. |
| Operating margin Net patient income as a share of revenue. The clearest health signal. | −7.3% | +1.1 pts | Trend 20172024 | WA median — | Rank in WA Not ranked | Loss A negative margin means resident care costs more than it earns. |
| Other income Money not from resident care: investments, grants, services. | $0.0M | — | Trend — | WA median — | Rank in WA Not ranked | 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. | −$0.7M | −$0.7M | Trend — | WA median — | Rank in WA Not ranked | Loss The bottom line is below zero even after other income. |
Staffing spend
Staff spending in line with Washington homes
| Metric | FY 2024 | vs prior year | Trend 2017 → 2024Trend | WA median | Compared with WA homesRank in WA | In short |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Payroll costs Salaries and wage-related benefits, not counting contract labor. | $6.8M | +$0.4M | Trend 20172024 | WA median $8.4M | Rank in WA Rank #44 / 60Payroll costs — State benchmarked This nursing home is ranked 44th 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 27% of homes | Below WA median Higher payroll than 27% 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. | 67.3% | +3.7 pts | Trend 20172024 | WA median 58.9% | Rank in WA Rank #12 / 60Payroll % of net patient revenue — State benchmarked This nursing home is ranked 12th 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 81% of homes | Near WA average The WA average is 64.4% of revenue. Within 3 points of it reads as near the average. |
Charts, 2017–2024 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
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
Year-by-year data, 2017–2024 every reported year · latest first, scroll sideways
| Metric | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Net patient revenue | $8.5M | $8.9M | $8.5M | $7.6M | $8.4M | $9.8M | $10.0M | $10.1M |
| Operating expenses | $8.9M | $9.1M | $8.9M | $8.6M | $8.9M | $10.6M | $10.8M | $10.8M |
| Net patient income | −$0.3M | −$0.1M | −$0.4M | −$1.0M | −$0.5M | −$0.8M | −$0.8M | −$0.7M |
| Operating margin | −3.8% | −1.6% | −4.7% | −13.0% | −5.7% | −8.1% | −8.4% | −7.3% |
| Net income | −$0.2M | −$0.1M | −$0.3M | −$0.4M | $0.3M | −$0.4M | $0.0M | −$0.7M |
| Payroll costs | $3.7M | $3.9M | $3.9M | $4.0M | $4.0M | $5.1M | $6.3M | $6.8M |
| Payroll share of revenue | 43.5% | 44.2% | 45.9% | 52.7% | 47.8% | 51.9% | 63.6% | 67.3% |
| Beds | 42 | 42 | 42 | 42 | 42 | 42 | 42 | 42 |
| Gross revenue | $11.3M | $10.9M | $10.4M | $9.0M | $9.6M | $11.0M | $12.1M | $12.3M |
| Salaries | $3.7M | $3.9M | $3.9M | $4.0M | $4.0M | $5.1M | $5.6M | $5.9M |
| Wage-related costs | — | — | — | — | — | — | $0.8M | $0.9M |
| Contract labor | — | — | — | — | $0.2M | $0.0M | $0.1M | $0.0M |
| Other operating costs | $5.1M | $5.1M | $5.0M | $4.6M | $4.9M | $5.5M | $4.5M | $4.0M |
| Net patient revenue per day | $671 | $634 | $612 | $623 | $672 | $730 | $720 | $907 |
| Cost per day | $697 | $645 | $641 | $704 | $710 | $790 | $781 | $974 |
| Average length of stay | 51.0 days | 58.1 days | 53.6 days | 52.6 days | 63.0 days | 62.8 days | 74.9 days | 54.7 days |
Showing 2024–2022 · scroll sideways for 5 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), Jun 2026
Arriving
215 admissions · FY2024
Residents admitted during the year.
Medicare
177 · 82%
Medicaid
12 · 6%
Private pay & other
26 · 12%
Resident snapshot
30 residents · Jun 2026
Residents counted on the date of the latest CMS report, which updates quarterly.
Medicare
10 · 33%
Medicaid
8 · 27%
Private pay & other
12 · 40%
Leaving
203 discharges · FY2024
Residents discharged during the year.
Medicare
166 · 82%
Medicaid
13 · 6%
Private pay & other
24 · 12%
Mostly short-term rehab stays
Most residents typically stay for a few weeks or months before returning home or moving on.
Living Spaces & Floor Plans for Sharon Care Center
Places of interest near Sharon Care Center
2.2 miles from city center
Estimated distance in miles from Centralia's city center to Sharon Care Center's address, calculated via Google Maps.
Calculate Travel Distance to Sharon Care Center
Add your location
Compare Nursing Homes around Centralia
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.
IL (Independent Living):
Community living with dining, activities, and transportation for active seniors who need little personal care.
|
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.
|
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.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prestige Post-Acute and Rehab Center – Centralia | NH AL IL MC | Centralia | 128
Facility
128
WA AVG
90
Rank
#11 / 69 |
74.3%
Facility
74.3%
WA AVG
77.6%
Rank
#29 / 56 | -4% | 4.26
Facility
4.26
WA AVG
4.29
Rank
#22 / 60 | -27% | -1% | $8.3k
Facility
$8.3k
WA AVG
$89.5k
Rank
#25 / 61 | 42
Facility
42
WA AVG
49.6
Rank
#26 / 61 | 2.6
Facility
2.6
WA AVG
6.2
Rank
#1 / 61 | 1 | 95 | A+ |
9
Facility
9
WA AVG
51
Rank
#79 / 80 | - | $13.8MFiscal year ending 12/2024
Facility
$13.8MFiscal year ending 12/2024
WA AVG
$16.6M
Rank
#30 / 60 | $7.4MFiscal year ending 12/2024
Facility
$7.4MFiscal year ending 12/2024
WA AVG
$10.1M
Rank
#39 / 60 | 53.5%Fiscal year ending 12/2024
Facility
53.5%Fiscal year ending 12/2024
WA AVG
64.4%
Rank
#46 / 60 | 505373 | ||||
| Sharon Care Center | NH AL MC SNF | Centralia | 72
Facility
72
WA AVG
90
Rank
#45 / 69 |
100.0%
Facility
100.0%
WA AVG
77.6%
Rank
#1 / 56 | +29% | - | +25% | - | $0
Facility
$0
WA AVG
$89.5k
Rank
#1 / 61 | 36
Facility
36
WA AVG
49.6
Rank
#23 / 61 | 9.0
Facility
9.0
WA AVG
6.2
Rank
#51 / 61 | - | 35 | - |
49
Facility
49
WA AVG
51
Rank
#40 / 80 | Summit Care LLC | $10.1MFiscal year ending 12/2024
Facility
$10.1MFiscal year ending 12/2024
WA AVG
$16.6M
Rank
#49 / 60 | $6.8MFiscal year ending 12/2024
Facility
$6.8MFiscal year ending 12/2024
WA AVG
$10.1M
Rank
#44 / 60 | 67.3%Fiscal year ending 12/2024
Facility
67.3%Fiscal year ending 12/2024
WA AVG
64.4%
Rank
#12 / 60 | 505429 |
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 for
Nursing Home in Washington
Sharon Care Center is located in Centralia, Washington State.
Here are the financial assistance programs available to residents in Washington State.
Frequently Asked Questions about Sharon Care Center
Is Sharon Care Center in a walkable area?
Sharon Care Center has a walk score of 49. Car-dependent. A few nearby services may be reachable on foot, but most trips require transportation.
What is the license number of Sharon Care Center?
According to WA state health department records, Sharon Care Center's license number is 1428.
What is the occupancy rate at Sharon Care Center?
Sharon Care Center's occupancy is 100%.
Are pets allowed at Sharon Care Center?
Yes, Sharon Care Center allows residents to bring their pets.
Does Sharon Care Center operate as a for-profit or non-profit?
Sharon Care Center is registered as a for-profit in WA.
What is the overall rating for Sharon Care Center?
Sharon Care Center received a 3-star overall rating from the CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services). This score combines results from staffing levels, quality measures, and health inspections.
How many beds does Sharon Care Center have?
Sharon Care Center has 72 beds.
Guides for Better Senior Living
Care Cost Calculator: See Prices in Your Area
Nursing Home Data Explorer
Don’t Wait Too Long: 7 Red Flag Signs Your Parent Needs Assisted Living Now
The True Cost of Assisted Living in 2025 – And How Families Are Paying For It
Understanding Senior Living Costs: Pricing Models, Discounts & Financial Assistance
Updated on
