No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Madison Valley Manor

211 N Main St, Ennis, MT 59729 · Government - County · 32 certified beds · (406) 682-7271 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (406) 682-7271 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Abuse-prevention, restraint, or reporting citation — no harm found (F0604) — cited May 2025
Insights

On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.

In its favor
  • a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
  • no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
  • no federal fines or payment denials on record
  • 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
Worth asking about
  • it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0604) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
  • nursing-staff turnover (61%) runs well above the national median (45%)

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.

5/5
CMS overall
5 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 5 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 5 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 4 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
100 Beaverhead Trl · (406) 995-2797 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
124 E main St · (406) 682-4246 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
110 E Main St · (406) 660-2081 · Call to confirm hours
Park
US Highway 287 · (406) 682-4388 · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship
101 N 1st St

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 4 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 4 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 improved from 4 to 5 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.

Overall rating5★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased17.5%18.7%15.4%worse
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight6.5%6.2%5.4%worse
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.0%2.1%0.9%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection4.1%2.9%2.0%worse
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms1.4%5.6%6.5%better
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained3.9%0.6%0.1%worse than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury2.6%4.4%3.3%better
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened6.2%17.2%16.1%better
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication15.4%15.8%18.9%better
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine90.5%93.6%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers1.5%6.3%4.7%better
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control30.8%24.1%21.2%worse
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table4.8%20.4%17.1%better

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.

0.01U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.01hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy

Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.01 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 0% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 0% 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
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNFnot 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 SNFnot 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 dischargenot reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. 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 dischargenot reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. 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 dischargenot reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. 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 identifiednot reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. 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 settingnot reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 dischargenot reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF staynot reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsenednot reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalizationnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFsnot 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

3.03
RN hours/ resident / day
0.37
LPN hours/ resident / day
3.18
Aide hours/ resident / day
6.58
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
2.55
RN hoursweekends
61.3%
Total nursing turnover
33.3%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 32 beds and averages 16.2 residents a day — about 51% occupied, or roughly 16 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. 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 6.58 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 3.03 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.18 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 6.33 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 6.67 on weekdays — 5% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 3.23 to 2.55 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 61% is well above the national median of 45%.

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

0
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2026-05-20)
9
at the previous standard inspection (2025-05-08)

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.

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.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

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.

14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.

  • Potential for harm · F2025-05-08 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespread
    Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
    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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure foods were dated and labeled when opened, disposed of when expired, and failed to maintain a clean kitchen environment. This failure increased the risk of unsanitary conditions and foodborne illnesses, for individuals consuming food stored in the facility kitchen and resident refrigerator, and from food prepared in the facility kitchen. Findings include: 1. Unlabeled/Undated/Expired Foods During an observation on 5/5/25 at 1:03 p.m., the following items were seen in the dry storage area: - one bag of vermicelli pasta, open and undated, - one box of vanilla maple cereal, open and undated, - one box of Jello mix, expiration date of 2022, - one box of Jello mix, expiration date of 2023, - one bottle of Karo corn syrup, best by date of 2024, - one bag of opened Chile de arbol powder, best by date of 7/1/23, - one open and undated bag of Knorr vegetable recipe mix, best by date of 2023, - one box of Honey Maid graham crackers, best by…

    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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · F2025-05-08 · tag F0908 — failed to keep essential equipment working — widespread
    Keep all essential equipment working safely.
    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 ensure one of the freezers was adequately maintained, in safe operating condition, in the kitchen. This failure increased the risk of foodborne illnesses for individuals consuming food prepared from the facility kitchen. Findings include: During an observation on 5/5/25 at 1:33 p.m., the bottom level shelves of the kitchen entry way freezer had two cardboard signs reading, Do Not Use. Food items were stored on all shelves of the freezer except the bottom level. During an interview on 5/7/25 at 2:56 p.m., staff member F stated there were plans to renovate and remodel the kitchen. Staff member F stated the freezer needed to be replaced. Staff member F stated it had been put on hold due to the planned renovation and remodel of the kitchen. Staff member F stated the cardboard signs reading Do Not Use were placed on the entry way bottom shelf of the freezer to remind staff not to put food items there. Staff member F stated when items were placed there, it caused freezer burn. This resulted in food sometimes…

    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.

    Environmental Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2025-05-08 · tag F0604 — failed to not use physical restraints improperly — pattern
    Ensure that each resident is free from the use of physical restraints, unless needed for medical treatment.
    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 perform and document a complete resident assessment prior to the use of bed rails as a restraint for 1 (#7); failed to complete and document a resident assessment prior to the use of a scoop mattress for 1 (#17); and failed to perform and document ongoing monitoring of the appropriate use of assistive devices which could be considered a restraint for 2 (#14 and #17) of 15 sampled residents. These failures increase the risk of injury for the residents. Findings include: 1. During an observation and interview on 5/5/25 at 2:04 p.m., resident #7 was in his room seated in his wheelchair. The resident's bed was noted to have upper half bed rails placed and pulled up on both sides of the bed. Resident #7 stated he used the bed rails a lot. Resident #7 stated his left side was paralyzed from a stroke. The second and third fingers of his left hand were contracted with limited range of motion. During an observation and interview on 5/7/25 at 1:32 p.m., resident #7 was seated in his wheelchair next to his bed. Both…

    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.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-05-08 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolated
    Immediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
    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 a resident's representative was notified regarding a fall, a urinary tract infection, and the administration of antibiotics for 1 (#14) of 15 sampled residents. Findings include: During an interview on 5/5/25 at 3:55 p.m., NF4 stated she was frustrated the facility failed to notify her immediately when resident #14 sustained a fall with injury on 3/30/25 at 2:58 a.m., and NF4 stated she was not notified when resident #14 was diagnosed with a urinary tract infection on 4/14/25 and started on antibiotics. Review of resident #14's nursing progress note, dated 3/30/25 at 2:58 a.m., showed the resident had an unwitnessed fall and sustained a skin tear on the back of her right hand and right wrist. The note also showed resident #14 had bruising from her right elbow to her forearm, and down the back of her right hand. The note failed to show the resident's representative was notified regarding the fall with injury. During an interview on 5/8/25 at 8:02 a.m., staff member D stated the nursing staff handled notifying…

    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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-05-08 · tag F0585 — failed to handle grievances — isolated
    Honor the resident's right to voice grievances without discrimination or reprisal and the facility must establish a grievance policy and make prompt efforts to resolve grievances.
    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 develop, implement, and operationalize a facility policy and procedure for grievances, and ensure grievance information was readily accessible, to include the name and contact information for the grievance official; failed to provide residents with readily available grievance forms for 1 (#18) of 15 sampled residents and failed to provide residents with the option to file grievances anonymously. Findings include: During an observation on 5/8/25 at 8:37 a.m., a walk-through of the facility's common areas was conducted. A resident information board was located at the front entrance to the facility which was enclosed in glass. No documentation was observed on how a resident could file a grievance. Grievance forms were found in one location, in a wall mounted clear file folder, next to the nurse's station. A wingback chair was in front of the wall mounted clear file folder containing grievance forms. No posting of the name and contact information of the grievance official was found, and no secure receptacle or…

    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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-05-08 · tag F0641 — isolated
    Ensure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
    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 ensure assistive devices were not coded incorrectly as restraints for 2 (#s 14 and 17) of 15 sampled residents. Findings include: 1. During an observation and interview on 5/7/25 at 11:56 a.m., resident #17 was seen up in her wheelchair out in the hallway. Resident #17 stated she has had the scoop mattress since she was admitted (2/6/24). Resident #17 stated she has been working with therapy to learn how to get out of bed on her own and stated the scoop mattress did not restrict her movement while in bed. No bed rails were seen on the resident's bed. During an observation on 5/7/25 at 12:55 p.m., resident #17 demonstrated her ability to turn to her side and sit up on the edge of the bed, independently, thereby demonstrating the scoop mattress did not limit the resident's freedom of movement and was not considered a restraint. Review of resident #17's Assistive Device/Restraint evaluation, dated 5/6/25, showed the resident was using a scoop mattress because of poor body core control. The evaluation also…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-05-08 · tag F0700 — isolated
    Try different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
    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 perform and document a complete resident assessment for the use of bed rails as a restraint for 1 (#7) of 15 sampled residents. This failure placed the resident at increased risk for injury related to the use of bed rails which met the definition of a restraint. Findings include: During an observation and interview on 5/5/25 at 2:04 p.m., resident #7 was in his room seated in his wheelchair. The resident's bed was noted to have bed rails on both sides of the bed in the up position. Resident #7 stated he used the bed rails a lot. Resident #7 stated his left side was paralyzed from a stroke. The second and third fingers of his left hand were contracted with limited range of motion. During an observation and interview on 5/7/25 at 1:32 p.m., resident #7 was seated in his wheelchair next to his bed. The bed rails were seen in the up position. When asked to lower the left bed rail, resident #7 was unable to pull the pin so the rail could be lowered. The resident stated he did not have the strength or coordination…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-05-08 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — isolated
    Provide enough nursing staff every day to meet the needs of every resident; and have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift.
    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 competent nursing staff were able to provide nursing service for on time medication administration for 1 (#8), and failed to meet a resident's physical and psychosocial needs, for 1 (#16) of 15 sampled residents. Findings include: 1. During an interview on 5/6/25 at 9:08 a.m., resident #16 stated there had been an issue with a travel nurse who had an attitude. Resident #16 stated the nurse was gone after only a few days. Resident #16 stated other residents had voiced concern and complained about the same travel nurse and had issues with the nurse's attitude and timeliness of completing care. Resident #16 was hesitant to provide additional detail regarding specific incidents. During an interview on 5/8/25 at 11:08 a.m., staff member B stated she was responsible for covering any call-offs by nurses. Staff member B stated she helped cover for medication passes if a traveler needed assistance. This was to help avoid medications being administered late. Staff member B stated she was on-call and available all the time.…

    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.

    Nursing and Physician Services Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-05-08 · tag F0849 — isolated
    Arrange for the provision of hospice services or assist the resident in transferring to a facility that will arrange for the provision of hospice services.
    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 ensure a hospice resident's pain was managed effectively and consistently, to lessen a resident's intermittent pain level, for 1 (#11) of 15 sampled residents. This increased the risk of causing unnecessary pain and/or discomfort. Findings include: During an observation and interview on 5/6/25 at 3:08 p.m., NF6 was sitting in a chair beside resident #11's recliner, holding resident #11's hand as resident #11 was resting. NF6 stated resident #11 received a regular dose of ibuprofen and Tylenol per hospice orders. NF6 stated she had a concern with nurses not giving morphine for pain relief until waiting one full hour for the dose of ibuprofen or Tylenol to kick in. NF6 stated resident #11 did not take medications for anxiety or any other psychotropics to assist with comfort needs. NF6 stated resident #11 had never taken many types of medications for pain, and did not always ask for pain medication. NF6 stated she spoke with staff member B about the pain medication timing. NF6 stated pain medication and its…

    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.

    Administration Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2024-09-10 · tag F0945 — failed to train staff on abuse prevention — pattern
    Include as part of its infection prevention and control program, mandatory training that includes written standards, policies, and procedures for the program.
    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 have a system in place to ensure temporary agency staff were trained on the facility's infection prevention and control program standards, policies, and procedures. This deficient practice had the potential to affect residents who worked with or were affected by the untrained staff. Findings include: During an interview on 9/9/24 at 10:19 a.m., staff member C stated she had been employed at the facility as a traveling CNA for approximately six months. She stated infection control training was not included in her on-board training at the facility. During an observation on 9/9/24 at 10:28 a.m., staff member C failed to perform proper infection control practices related to hand hygiene (See F880). During an interview on 9/9/24 at 12:10 p.m., staff member E stated she educated staff on infection prevention and control practices annually and during orientation of new employees. During an interview on 9/9/24 at 1:10 p.m., staff member D stated she was hired as a traveling employee in the middle of August 2024. She…

    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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-09-10 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview, and record review, staff member C failed to adhere to standard precautions, related to the use of personal protective equipment and hand hygiene, while providing personal care for 1 (#1) of 9 sampled residents residing in the facility. Findings include: During an observation on 9/9/24 at 10:26 a.m., staff member C donned gloves and entered resident #1's room. Staff member C did not sanitize her hands before donning the clean gloves. During an observation on 9/9/24 at 10:28 a.m., staff member C and staff member D assisted resident #1 with repositioning. Staff member C removed resident #1's soiled incontinence brief and cleaned loose stool from the resident's peri area, then disposed of the brief in the garbage can. Staff member C did not remove the dirty gloves. Staff member C preceeded to assist staff member D with placing the Hoyer lift sling under resident #1, removed the resident's clothing she was wearing, and put on clean clothing. Staff member C, still wearing the dirty gloves, placed a clean incontinence brief back into resident #1's clothing…

    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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-05-08 · tag F0641 — pattern
    Ensure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
    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 ensure MDS assessments were coded correctly for diagnoses for 1 (#5); and for bed rails for 3 (#s 8, 12, and 13) of 12 sampled residents for MDS accuracy. Findings include: 1. Review of resident #5's Physician Office Clinic Note, dated 3/18/24, showed the physician added the diagnosis of Dementia under the section, Assessment/Plan. Review of resident #5's Quarterly MDS, with an ARD of 4/17/24, failed to show a diagnosis of Dementia on the assessment. The assessment had not been revised to show the new diagnosis of dementia. Review of resident #5's EMR showed documentation of a request to add Dementia to the resident's diagnosis list on 5/6/24, the first day of the survey. During an interview on 5/7/24 at 11:13 a.m., staff member F stated resident #5 definitely had a diagnosis of Dementia. During an interview on 5/7/24 at 2:35 p.m., staff member D stated to add a diagnosis to resident #5's diagnosis list, the provider needed to sign a form, or it needed to be discussed during medication reviews. Staff member D…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2024-05-08 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — pattern
    Develop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
    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 revise care plans to reflect the medical status for 1 (#9) resident; and to reflect bed rail usage for 1 (#16) of 12 sampled residents for care plans. This had the potential to cause staff to provide inaccurate care to the residents. Findings include: 1. Review of resident #9's physician's order, with a discontinued date of 4/12/24, showed, blood glucose check. Notify provider if greater than 400. Review of resident #9's comprehensive care plan, with a revision date of 5/6/24, showed, continue monitoring blood sugars as ordered. Review of resident #9's MAR showed resident #9's blood sugar had not been checked since 4/12/24. During an interview on 5/8/24 at 7:35 a.m., staff member F stated, We haven't been checking resident #9's blood sugar because hospice discontinued them. 2. During an observation on 5/7/24 at 11:36 a.m., resident #9 was observed in a wheelchair in the Day Room. During an observation on 5/7/24 at 1:14 p.m., resident #9 was observed in a wheelchair in the dining room. 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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-05-08 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
    Develop 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 and interview, the facility failed to implement the intervention of bed rails and update the care plan for use of the rails, for 1 (#16) of 5 sampled residents with bed rails. Findings include: During an observation on 5/6/24 at 3:05 p.m., resident #16 was sleeping in his bed. There were no bed rails on the bed. During an observation on 5/7/24 at 2:20 p.m., resident #16 was up in his wheelchair. Resident #16 did not have bed rails present on his bed. Review of resident #16's physician orders, dated 10/24/23, showed, .use of right bed side rail for bed mobility and repositioning to enhance independence, not being used as restraint . Review of resident #16's paper Care Plan, in a binder labeled, 'Hall1,' dated 2/28/24, showed, Side rail on bed per [Resident #16's] request; left side rail not being used as restraint method. During an interview on 5/7/24 at 3:23 p.m., staff member H stated she did not think resident #16 had bed rails, then she looked in the resident's EMR and stated it looked like there was an order for a bed rail. Staff member H stated resident #16…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“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.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • 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.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleSince
FORSYTHE, JAYNEIndividualW-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEEsince 12/09/2015
VAUGHN, DARCELIndividualW-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEEsince 06/12/2013
HART, JAMESIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 01/01/2007
NYE, RONALDIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 01/01/2015
SCHULZ, DAVIDIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 01/01/2011

The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.

Follow the money — this home’s finances

Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.

$2.3M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-99.5%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 52%Medicare 1%Other / private 46%

A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.

Cost & finances

$605per resident / day
operating cost
$18,397per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$303per day
avg. revenue, all payers

Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2024). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.

What families pay in MT

Paying with Medicaid

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.

Typical monthly cost in Montana
$8,973/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$9,581/mo
Nursing home (private)
$6,075/mo
Assisted living

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 275136. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-05-20, 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.

What to do next