This bill creates a new unexpected fatality review process for deaths of residents of Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) facilities and establishes a new office of the developmental disabilities ombuds. It adds new sections to chapter 43.20A RCW and chapter 43.382 RCW and also amends RCW 43.382.005 (the amendment text in the provided materials is cut off). The DSHS must convene an independent review team (including a Health Care Authority representative and either the patient rights ombuds or the developmental disabilities ombuds depending on facility type), ensure team members were not previously involved in the case, analyze root causes, and issue a written review report within 120 days of the fatality (unless the governor grants an extension). Reviews must not displace APS, CPS, residential care, or law enforcement investigations. The bill requires DSHS to develop a corrective action plan within 10 days of completing the review and to implement corrective actions within 120 days unless the governor grants an extension. Completed reports and corrective action plans must be posted on DSHS’s public website with required redactions; each review report must record team members’ votes, participation, or comments and must describe any abuse or neglect reports about the decedent from the prior year. The bill gives review teams access to DSHS records, makes review materials generally confidential and inadmissible in civil or administrative proceedings with specified exceptions, and excludes that confidentiality for licensing or disciplinary proceedings tied to allegations of wrongdoing connected to an reviewed fatality. The bill creates an office of the developmental disabilities ombuds to be operated by a private, independent nonprofit contractor selected by the Department of Commerce through competitive bidding, requires the contractor to have specified experience and capacity, and limits revocation of the contractor’s designation to specified causes (the provision is cut off in the provided text). The Department of Commerce must ensure ombuds staff have training and support; the ombuds office has duties including investigating complaints, monitoring service delivery, reviewing facilities and procedures, participating in unexpected fatality reviews, protecting confidentiality, and issuing annual reports to the governor and appropriate legislative committees by November 1 each year (and a progress report on a contemplated expansion model by November 1, 2019). The bill also directs DSHS to identify qualifying resident fatalities from July 1, 2015 through the statute’s effective date and report findings, to the extent possible, to the governor and legislature by November 1, 2027. Uncertainties in the provided text: the exact effective date referenced for the historical fatality review is not given, and the amendment to RCW 43.382.005 is cut off mid‑sentence so its full language and any additional provisions are not available here.

If enacted, state agencies will be required to run formal independent reviews whenever a resident of a DSHS facility dies unexpectedly and to produce public reports and corrective action plans on a tight timeline, while the Department of Commerce must contract with a private nonprofit to operate a new developmental disabilities ombuds office that will investigate complaints, monitor services, participate in those reviews, and report annually. In practice this means DSHS will need more staff time, investigative resources, and likely new funding to convene review teams, analyze root causes, write and post reports, and implement corrective actions; Commerce will incur contracting and oversight costs and must ensure ombuds staff have appropriate training and support. The changes will increase transparency for residents, families, and the legislature and likely lead facilities to change practices in response to published recommendations, but they also create potential reputational and regulatory scrutiny for facilities despite some confidentiality protections for review materials (with exceptions for licensing or disciplinary actions). Important details are missing from the extracted text—notably the bill’s effective date for the retrospective review requirement and the full contract revocation language—so the timing, scope of historical review back to 2015, and certain contracting limits are uncertain.