Montana Veterans Home N H
400 Veterans Dr, Columbia Falls, MT 59912 · Government - State · 105 certified beds · (406) 892-3256 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- CMS has flagged it for abuse
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Aug 2025
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
- a high number of inspection citations overall (15) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $93,899 in federal fines (most recent 2025-08-19)
- its payroll-based staffing score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- its last standard health inspection was over 2 years ago — the star rating may not reflect current conditions
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing rating runs 3 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the staffing score rests on the facility's own payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 5 to 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 20.6% | 18.7% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.8% | 6.2% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 7.2% | 2.1% | 0.9% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 3.5% | 2.9% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 5.6% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.6% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 4.1% | 4.4% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 13.4% | 17.2% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 21.3% | 15.8% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 96.3% | 93.6% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.3% | 6.3% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 23.2% | 24.1% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 30.1% | 20.4% | 17.1% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.79 | 1.38 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.12 | 2.16 | 1.80 | better |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.07 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 4% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 2% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — Newly certified nursing home with less than 12-15 months of data available or the nursing home opened less than 6 months ago, and there were no data to submit or claims for this measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — Newly certified nursing home with less than 12-15 months of data available or the nursing home opened less than 6 months ago, and there were no data to submit or claims for this measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 105 beds and averages 75.0 residents a day — about 71% occupied, or roughly 30 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 5.68 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.25 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.97 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 5.23 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.86 on weekdays — 11% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.35 to 1.00 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 43% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 2 years ago; the arrow describes what inspectors found then, not what the home is like now.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
15 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · Kcited before2025-08-19 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — patternProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to recognize and prevent sexual abuse and neglect, and identify the residents' ability to consent to sexual activity, for 9 (#s 9, 12, 17, 44, 61, 77, 78, 80, and 89) of 28 sampled residents. This deficient practice resulted in residents participating in sexual activities who were unable to make their own decisions, which increased the risk of sexual abuse and psychosocial harm for residents, and this was identified to be an Immediate Jeopardy situation; and, based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident was free from physical abuse by a staff member, which resulted in a skin tear on the resident's left hand for 1 (#20) of 28 sampled residents. On [DATE] at 9:58 a.m., the Administrator and facility management team were notified that an Immediate Jeopardy existed in the area of F600. related to the failure to address sexual activity amongst the residents. The Severity and Scope identified for the Immediate…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-08-19 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — patternRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to thoroughly investigate allegations and resident actions of sexual abuse for 3 (#s 9, 17, and 89) out of 28 sampled residents. This deficient practice increased the risk of incidents occurring in the future for these residents, and others, and the residents were identified to be vulnerable and unable to consent to sexual activity. The facility staff did not identify the resident actions as potential abuse or protect them, and staff were aware of the resident actions but did not address the alleged potential abuse, reflecting the facility's abuse education program was not sufficient to ensure resident safety. Findings include: During an interview on 8/13/25 at 1:57 p.m., staff member L stated they received a report of an incident with resident #89 and resident #17, where resident #89 had no clothes on, and resident #17 was on top of resident #89 performing oral sex. This had occurred four months prior, and approximately three weeks ago, resident #17 went into resident #9's room, and staff found resident #9 in the bed.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-08-19 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the care plan contained a care area and interventions regarding sexual behaviors and interactions between residents, for 2 (#s 17 and 80) of 28 sampled residents. Findings include:During an interview on 8/13/25 at 11:37 a.m., staff member H stated there were many residents who participated in sexual activity who were unable to consent.A review of resident #17's care plan problem, goals, and interventions, all undated, showed the resident had a history of sexual behaviors that were exhibited towards other residents. There was no information for if he was a risk to other residents or himself. The goal was documented as the resident would have fewer episodes, but the goal did not show what episodes would be fewer or how this would be measured. The goal did not include information about the residents' safety. The interventions listed did not include any interventions related to protecting other residents from potential sexual abuse, or if the resident was able to consent to the sexual activities. During an interview on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-07-18 · tag F0582 — isolatedGive residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide the required forms to residents who were ending skilled Medicare Part A services, to allow the resident or responsible party the opportunity to accept the discontinuation of coverage decision, appeal the decision, or agree to pay privately out of pocket, for ongoing services; and the facility failed to obtain the necessary signatures on these ABN and NOMNC forms, for 3 (#s 9, 11, and 113) of 3 sampled residents for the completion of the forms. This deficient practice may affect others ending skilled Medicare A services, due to the system failures identified with the handling of the forms. Findings Include: A. Review of resident #9's SNF Beneficiary Protection Notification Review form, was filled in showing the last covered day was 5/21/24 as a facility-initiated discharge from Medicare part A services. This required an ABN and NOMNC form were required to be filled out and given prior to the resident's discharge. Resident #9's, ABN form, showed, as of 5/22/24, the care being discontinued as Nursing Care, and the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2023-06-22 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — widespreadEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to properly label medications by only using the residents last name on medications removed from their original container and failed to properly store a narcotic during the practice of pre-pouring medications during the morning medication pass, for the residents on the 400 hall. This deficiency increased the risk of medication administration errors, and the potential for a narcotic medication to be mishandled. Findings include: During an interview on 6/21/23 at 7:40 a.m., staff member N stated, I already have the medications poured. We are allowed to pre-pour medications here, everything but narcotics During an interview and observation on 6/21/23 at 8:30 a.m., staff member N stated, she puts the resident's morning medications in a plastic medication cup, then places a paper medication cup on top of the medications with the resident's last name handwritten inside the paper cup. There were several cups in the top drawer of her cart arranged as she had described. Each cup had the resident's last name handwritten…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-06-22 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — patternEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to adhere to professional standards of care during medication administration pass and medications were pre-poured. This deficiency resulted #11 being handed the wrong cup of medications to take during morning med pass, and the medications were for resident#58. This practice had the potential to affect #58 or others residing on the 400-hall. Findings include: During an interview on 6/21/23 at 7:40 a.m., Staff member N stated, I already have all the medications poured. We are allowed to pre-pour medications here, everything but narcotics. She asked the surveyor to return at 8:30 a.m. for the medication pass. During an interview and observation on 6/21/23 at 8:30 a.m., staff member N stated, she puts the resident's morning medications in a plastic medication cup, then places a paper medication cup on top of the medications with the residents last name handwritten inside the paper cup. There were several cups in the top drawer arranged as she had described. She stated this method helps her know to whom the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-06-22 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to protect residents from verbal and physical abuse, perpetuated by a staff member, for a resident with dementia, for 1 (#12) of 4 sampled residents. Findings include: Review of a Facility Reported Incident, dated 3/2/23, showed NF3 was observed by another staff member to flick resident #12 in the throat. He then wrote the words, You're being an asshole on the resident's white board and showed it to him. Resident #12 had dementia and was being combative with cares. Review of the facility investigation file, dated March 2023, showed the incident had been immediately reported, investigated, and the staff accused was suspended. NF3 no longer worked at the facility. Review of the facility's policy, titled: Abuse-Resident, with a revision date of 7/22/20, showed: - Abuse means the willful infliction of injury . verbal abuse is defined as the use of oral, written, or gestured language that willfully includes disparaging and derogatory terms to residents . regardless of their age, ability to comprehend . During an interview on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-06-22 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement a person-centered care plan to meet the resident's mental and psychosocial well-being for a resident with PTSD, and the resident voiced concerns related to triggers occurring, for 1 (#58) of 3 sampled residents. Findings include: During an observation and interview on 6/19/23 at 3:53 p.m., resident #58 was sitting in his room, looking out the window. Resident #58 stated he prefers to stay in his room most of the time. Resident #58 stated he did not like to be around a lot of people; it made him nervous. A review of resident #58's admission diagnosis list, dated 3/8/23, showed: - Depression - PTSD During an interview on 6/21/23 at 1:20 p.m., Resident #58 stated, No one has ever talked to me about PTSD since I have been here. Resident #58 stated he does have some PTSD triggers, such as being around a lot of people makes him nervous; noises at night; and the news or current events can trigger his PTSD. Resident #58 was tearful as he discussed Vietnam and his PTSD triggers. A review of resident #58's…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-06-22 · tag F0699 — isolatedProvide care or services that was trauma informed and/or culturally competent.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility staff failed to identify and address PTSD, provide trauma-informed care, and meet professional standards that accounted for the resident's experiences and preferences to manage and prevent or attempt to minimize PTSD triggers, for 1 (#58) of 3 sampled residents, and the triggers, especially at night or news, would cause him panic at times. Findings include: During an interview on 6/21/23 at 1:20 p.m., Resident #58 stated, No one has ever talked to me about PTSD since I have been here. Resident #58 stated during his time in Vietnam and Korea, he had taken 'heavy fire from the [NAME] Cong' and did not know if he was going to make it home alive or if he was ever going to see my family again. Resident #58 stated being around a lot of people; noises at night; and the news or current events can trigger his PTSD. Resident #58 stated at night he would sometimes be woken up by staff making loud noises, and this would cause a panic like reaction. During an interview on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2022-07-07 · tag F0582 — isolatedGive residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide completed beneficiary notices for 3 (#s 37, 41, and 48) of 3 sampled residents. This deficiency had the potential to affect any resident with discontinued Medicare part A services. Findings include: A. Review of resident #48's, SNF Beneficiary Protection Notification Review form, was filled in showing the last covered day was 4/22/22 as a facility-initiated discharge from Medicare part A services. This required an ABN form and NOMNC form to be filled out and given prior to the discharge. Resident #48's, ABN form, showed, as of 4/23/22, the care being discontinued as, Nursing Care, and the reason for stopping Medicare Part A was, Skilled Care not required at this time. No estimated cost for continued services was filled out. The three options for accepting, appealing, or paying out of pocket were not selected; no additional information was provided, and no representative signature, date, or documentation of notification was completed. Resident #48's NOMNC showed, staff member M made a note on 4/22/22 that she called…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-07-07 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolatedKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to establish consent or develop a facility policy for continuous camera/video monitoring of residents, potentially violating a residents' right to privacy, for 2 (#s 23 and 47) of 2 sampled residents. Findings include: A. During an observation on 7/7/22 at 9:18 a.m., resident #47 was visualized sitting in the recliner in his room via a camera monitor that was placed at the nurses' station. During an interview on 7/7/22 at 9:46 a.m., staff member K stated staff will turn off the cameras during care. She was not sure about any consents for the residents to be continuously monitored by camera/video. Review of resident #47's medical record showed consents signed by his POA for psychotropic medications and position change alarms. There was no consent for video monitoring. B. During an interview on 7/7/22 at 10:20 a.m., staff member J stated the video monitors were interventions for fall prevention. Staff member J stated they did not have the requested facility policy for the monitors or visual monitoring in resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2022-07-07 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to act on an allegation of staff to resident abuse, and the resident had a mental illness and complained about a staff member's interactions with her on more than one occasion, and the resident considered it ongoing mental abuse; and, the facility failed to show why the allegation of abuse was not substantiated, for 1 (#29) of 6 sampled residents. Findings include: 1. Review of a facility reported incident reported to the State Survey Agency, dated 6/15/21, showed resident #29 reported to the MD that NF2 would not give her a requested PRN medication for pain, which should be given with food. The report showed, The RN may have misunderstood whether the resident had eaten or not. Resident #29 stated staff member NF2 was curt and sarcastic with her on a regular basis. The resident reported feeling mentally abused. The findings of the investigation showed, It seems no abuse occurred. Staff member NF2 will return to work. RN supervisor will work with staff member on customer service and approach with resident #29 in the future.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-07-07 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to report a resident allegation of mistreatment and potential mental abuse to the State Survey Agency for 1 (#29) of 6 sampled residents. Findings include: Review of a hand-written allegation of mistreatment/mental abuse, dated 7/12/21, by resident #29, showed the resident stated staff member NF2 continues to treate her with absolutley no respect, and she did not deserve that kind of treatement. It was having a negative impact on her life, by her feeling 'not good.' Review of a Facility Reported Incident, dated 6/15/21, showed resident #29 voiced a similar allegation with no documented resolution for the resident. During an interview on 7/7/22 at 12:30 p.m., staff member A stated the 7/12/21 allegation did not rise to the level of abuse, and was just a resident grievance, and so it was not reported to the State Survey Agency.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2022-07-07 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to thoroughly investigate two allegations of mistreatment and potential mental abuse, allowing the mistreatment and potential mental abuse to continue, for 1 (#29) of 6 sampled residents. Findings include: 1. Review of the Facility Reported Incident, dated 6/15/21, showed resident #29 reported to her physician that NF2 refused to give her a PRN pain medication. She also stated he was curt and sarcastic when interacting with her. The report showed the allegation of potential mental abuse was not substantiated, but did not include the information the facility used to reach their conclusion. No documentation was provided regarding resident #29's psychosocial status or further monitoring of NF2 for the protection of the resident. 2. Review of a second allegation, on a facility Grievance/Complaint form, dated 7/12/21, showed resident #29 stated she continued to be treated with disrespect at all times from NF2, and that she did not need that treatment in her life. Review of the response from the facility was a typed conversation…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-07-07 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to manage oxygen therapy for 1 (#8) of 2 sampled residents, which could lead to an upper respiratory infection and exacerbation of respiratory symptoms due to low oxygen saturation for the resident(s). Findings include: During an observation on 7/5/22 at 3:56 p.m., inside the smoking door area, there was one oxygen canister with a mask hung on a nail touching the wall with no cover. The portable oxygen canister the mask was connected to, was low on oxygen, and still running with a buildup of white condensation on it. Another portable oxygen canister had a cannula, with an orange tinge to it, and no cover, slung over the railing, touching the bottom of the wall along the floor. During an observation on 7/5/22 at 4:04 p.m., resident #8 let himself in the smoking door. The resident then put on the oxygen mask that was running and touching the wall, without sanitizing his hands, and continued to go to his room. No staff checked his oxygen levels. Resident #8 had a slow, shuffling pace, and on observation he had a…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
$93,899 in federal fines across 1 penalty. 1 Medicare payment denial on record.
- $93,899 — penalty dated 2025-08-19
- Medicare payment denial — starting 2025-09-20 for 5 days
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| UNDERDAHL, JOREN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 11/30/2009 |
| STATE OF MONTANA | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 10/01/1989 |
| ROOPE, STACY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 10/01/2016 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 4 rows in the source record cover these 3 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
What families pay in MT
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Montana Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 275100. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-07-18, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.