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

Mountain View Of Cascadia

10 Mountain View Dr, Eureka, MT 59917 · For profit - Corporation · 49 certified beds · (406) 297-2541 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (406) 297-2541 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Behavioral-health or dementia-care citation — no harm found (F0758)
Insights

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

In its favor
  • a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — 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

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 4 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 3 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 5 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★★ 3/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
304 Osloski Rd · (406) 297-3145 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
546 US-93 N · (406) 297-7748 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
2 Dewey Ave · (406) 297-4636 · Call to confirm hours
Park
11 Dewey Ave · (406) 297-2121 · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship
101 Julian Dr · (406) 297-4673

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 5 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 4 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 5 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 held steady at 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 increased16.5%18.7%15.4%typical
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight3.7%6.2%5.4%better
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 infection0.0%2.9%2.0%better
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms4.3%5.6%6.5%better
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.6%0.1%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury5.2%4.4%3.3%worse
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened9.3%17.2%16.1%better
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication15.7%15.8%18.9%better
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%93.6%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers1.3%6.3%4.7%better
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control19.0%24.1%21.2%better
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table13.6%20.4%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication0.0%1.2%1.4%better
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission13.7%19.2%22.6%better
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit4.1%14.5%12.0%better
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days1.581.381.67typical
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days1.602.161.80better

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.

10.3%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
65.2%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.35U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.15hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.12hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.08hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 65.2% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 23 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.

Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.35 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 60% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 1% 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 SNF10.3%CMS range 6.0–17.410.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge65.2%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge43.5%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge60.9%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified100.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this 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 number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. 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 number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. 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 stay0.0%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened0.0%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this 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 SNFs1.141.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS makes no comparison for this 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

1.00
RN hours/ resident / day
0.04
LPN hours/ resident / day
1.81
Aide hours/ resident / day
2.84
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.65
RN hoursweekends
53.3%
Total nursing turnover
33.3%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 49 beds and averages 46.9 residents a day — about 96% occupied, or roughly 2 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. 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 2.84 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.00 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.81 is below 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 2.49 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 2.99 on weekdays — 17% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.13 to 0.65 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 53% is about the same as 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

6
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2025-06-05)
1
at the previous standard inspection (2024-06-06)

Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. 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.

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

  • Potential for harm · F2025-06-05 · tag F0839 — widespread
    Employ staff that are licensed, certified, or registered in accordance with state laws.
    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 they employed qualified and competent staff to provide social work services. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all residents in need of social services. Findings include: During an interview on 6/4/25 at 10:05 a.m., staff member A stated NF3 was originally hired as a business office assistant. She was later promoted to social service director. He stated she had some on-the-job training when she first assumed the role. Stating she went to another corporate facility and received on-site training there with the social worker at that facility. A request submitted on 6/4/25 at 10:30 a.m., for additional training/education for NF3, for acting as a social work director, was submitted. No additional training or education for NF3, related to social work services, was provided by the end of the survey. During an interview on 6/4/25 at 2:40 p.m., NF3 stated she was not originally hired as the facility's social worker. She stated she was later promoted into the position. NF3 stated she did not have 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.

    Administration Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2025-06-05 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — pattern
    Safeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
    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 safeguards to prevent unauthorized use of electronic signatures for residents Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) Form for 3 (#s 9, 31, and 40) of 15 sampled residents. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all residents with the need to sign MSP forms. Findings include: During an interview on 6/4/25 at 10:05 a.m., staff member A stated it was brought to his attention that NF3 was electronically signing resident and/or resident's representative names on documents for MSP forms. He stated staff member G noticed a bunch of MSP forms being printed back-to-back for several residents. Staff member A stated when staff member G brought the concern to his attention it was noted that the documents, which had an electronic signature, were not actually signed by the residents or their representatives. During an interview on 6/4/25 at 2:46 p.m., staff member G stated NF3 was behind on getting the MSP forms signed by the residents or their representatives. She stated one morning she noticed there were several MSP forms…

    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 · D2025-06-05 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolated
    Honor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident was served a meal when tablemate's were served, and the resident had to wait 20 minutes while the other residents at the table finished their meals, for 1 (#43); and failed to ensure catheter bags were covered with a dignity bag in public areas for 1 (#15) of 15 sampled residents. Findings include: 1. During an observation on 6/3/25 at 8:21 a.m., resident #43 was seated at the dining table across from another resident. This resident had his plate and was eating breakfast. Resident #43 did not have her food. Residents at nearby tables were served their plates in no particular order. During an observation on 6/3/25 at 8:37 a.m., resident #43's tablemate had finished his breakfast. Resident #43 was still waiting for her plate. She wondered out loud if she could leave. During an observation on 6/3/25 at 8:44 a.m., resident #43 was served her breakfast. Resident #43 waited 23 minutes for her plate while those at her table and surrounding tables ate their meals. During an interview on 6/4/25 at…

    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 · D2025-06-05 · tag F0552 — isolated
    Ensure that residents are fully informed and understand their health status, care and treatments.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to inform and include the residents' guardian in the decision-making process for initiating physical and occupational therapy services, for 3 (#s 15, 19, and 44) of 15 sampled residents. This deficient practice caused the representative frustration and limited their ability to participate in resident care. Findings include: 1. During an interview on 6/4/25 at 3:36 p.m., NF2 stated she was concerned she was not informed by the facility that resident #19 was receiving therapy services. She stated she only became aware the resident was receiving therapy services when she was contacted about needing to sign a form to discontinue physical therapy. NF2 stated she was the legal guardian for resident #19, and the resident was not capable of making informed decisions for her own care. She stated she would have liked to be part of the decision-making process for resident #19, regarding her therapy services, so she could have attended the evaluation to discuss therapy goals for the resident. Review of resident #19's Physical Therapy…

    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 before2025-06-05 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to implement care planned fall interventions contributing to falls for 2 (#s 6 and 12) of 15 sampled residents. This deficient practice increased the risk for falls. Findings include: 1. Resident #6 Review of resident #6's Care Plan Report, date initiated 12/1/23, reflected the following: .Goal: She will be free of fall related injuries . Environmental: Provide non-skid strips on floor next to bed on both sides of bed . [sic] During an observation on 6/2/25 at 1:25 p.m., non-skid strips were not visible on the floor of resident #6's room. During an observation on 6/4/25 at 8:44 a.m., non-skid strips were not visible on the floor of resident #6's room. During an interview on 6/4/25 at 11:52 a.m., staff member K stated resident #6 did not routinely call for help and stated, I think there are strips on the floor by her bed, but no fall mat. During an observation on 6/5/25 at 8:36 a.m., non-skid strips were noted on the floor of resident #6's room. The bed was positioned near the window thus revealing non-skid…

    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 · D2025-06-05 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolated
    Provide 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 change oxygen tubing as ordered and keep oxygen tubing off the floor for 1 (#6) of 15 sampled residents. This deficient practice increased the risk for a respiratory infection. Findings include: During an observation on 6/2/25 at 1:25 p.m., oxygen tubing was at resident #6's bedside, and it was not dated. During an observation on 6/3/25 at 11:45 a.m., oxygen tubing was at resident #6's bedside; it was not dated, and the portion of the tubing that connects to the resident's face/nose was sitting on the floor. During an interview on 6/4/25 at 11:52 a.m., staff member K stated oxygen tubing should be changed every Tuesday or Wednesday by staff member I. During an interview on 6/4/25 at 11:57 a.m., staff member E stated oxygen tubing should be changed every Monday. During an interview on 6/4/25 at 12:02 p.m., staff member I stated she changed oxygen tubing every Monday afternoon for residents, unless she was not working, and in that case a nurse would change the tubing. During an interview on 6/4/25 at 2:39 p.m.,…

    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 · D2024-06-06 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolated
    Implement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
    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 an end date for an as needed anti-anxiety medication order, for 2 (#s 1 and 4) of 14 sampled residents. Findings include: A review of resident #1's physician orders, dated 12/5/23, 3/5/24, and 3/7/24, showed, Lorazepam 1 mg. Give 1 tablet orally once a day as needed for anxiety. The orders did not include a duration. Lorazepam is the generic name for Ativan, an anti-anxiety medication. Review of resident #1's physician progress note, dated 12/5/24, showed, Patient had single episode . feeling very claustrophobic and anxious . Will write prescription for LORAZEPAM to have on hand just as needed . There was no duration noted. During an interview on 6/5/24 at 8:47 a.m., staff member F stated they did the 14-day limit for antipsychotic medications, but she was not aware of a duration requirement on PRN psychotropic medication orders. During an interview on 6/5/24 at 10:50 a.m., staff member F was not aware of needing to have a specified duration or stop date for continued PRN psychotropics. Staff member F stated 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.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · F2024-06-06 · tag F0659 — widespread
    Provide care by qualified persons according to each resident's written plan of care.
    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 ensure a staff member that was hired as a medication aide was certified or licensed. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all residents in the facility receiving medications, to include 1 (#2) resident. Findings include: During an interview on [DATE] at 2:46 p.m., staff member C stated during the time when staff member E was hired the previous DON had checked licensing and certifications for new hires. Staff member E had a certified medical assistant certificate but not a medication aide license. During an interview on [DATE] at 2:57 p.m., staff member B stated she audited nursing staff licensing in February 2024 and discovered staff member E did not have a medication technician license or certificate. During an interview on [DATE] at 9:54 a.m., staff member A stated the previous DON confused medication aide with medical assistant certification when staff member E was hired. A review of an Offer of employment, document dated [DATE],…

    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 · Past Non-Compliance
  • Potential for harm · E2023-05-22 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — pattern
    Develop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
    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 residents' medical record included documentation the resident, or resident representative, was provided education regarding the benefits/side effects of pneumococcal and influenza vaccinations for 4 (#s 1, 4, 21, and 182) of 5 sampled residents. Findings include: During an interview on 5/22/23 at 1:52 p.m., staff member B stated they did not have signed vaccine declinations with education about risks/benefits for resident #s 1, 4, 21, and 182. Review of resident #s 1, 4, 21, and 182's electronic medical records accessed 5/20/23 - 5/22/23, showed a lack a documentation regarding education being provided to residents, or their representatives, on influenza and pneumococcal vaccinations. Review of resident #1's immunizations showed she refused the influenza vaccine. Review of resident #4's immunizations showed she refused the influenza vaccine. Review of resident #21's immunizations showed she refused the influenza and pneumococcal vaccines. Review of resident #182's immunizations showed he refused the influenza…

    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 · E2023-05-22 · tag F0887 — pattern
    Educate residents and staff on COVID-19 vaccination, offer the COVID-19 vaccine to eligible residents and staff after education, and properly document each resident and staff member's vaccination status.
    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 residents' medical record included documentation the resident, or resident representative, was provided education regarding the benefits/side effects of Covid-19 vaccinations for 5 (#s 1, 4, 5, 21, and 182) of 5 sampled residents. Findings include: During an interview on 5/22/23 at 1:52 p.m., staff member B stated the facility did not have signed vaccine declinations with education about risks/benefits for resident #s 1, 4, 5, 21, and 182. Review of resident #s 1, 4, 5, 21, and 182's electronic medical records, accessed 5/20/23 - 5/22/23, showed a lack a documentation regarding education being provided to residents, or their representatives, on Covid-19 vaccinations. Review of resident #1's immunizations showed she refused the Covid-19 vaccine. Review of resident #4's immunizations showed she refused the Covid-19 vaccine. Review of resident #5's immunizations showed she refused the Covid-19 vaccine. Review of resident #21's immunizations showed she refused the Covid-19 vaccine. Review of resident #182'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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-05-22 · 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 notify the physician of resident concerns, including a significant weight loss for 1 (# 4); and missed doses of medications for 1 (#6) of 2 sampled residents. Findings include: 1. Review of resident #4's documented weights showed: - 1/15/23 the resident weighed 124.2 lbs. - 2/12/23 the resident weighed 116 lbs. This represented a 6.6% weight loss in one month. There was no documentation stating the physician was aware of the significant weight loss. During an interview on 5/22/23 at 3:15 p.m., staff member F stated they would notify the doctor of resident changes by fax, versus a phone call, as long as there was no injury. During an interview on 5/22/23 at 3:30 p.m., staff member D stated physician notification done by fax would be saved and scanned into the chart. Documentation of physician notification of resident #4's weight loss was requested on 5/22/23. It was not provided by the end of the survey. 2. Review of resident #6's nursing progress notes, dated 2/15/23, showed the resident did not receive two of her…

    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 · D2023-05-22 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolated
    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

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure care plans were updated after falls for 2 (#1 and #26) of 2 sampled residents. Findings include: 1. During an interview on 5/20/23 at 3:31 p.m., resident #1 stated she had falls in the past at the facility, once at her toilet, and a few times near her bed. Resident #1 stated the fall on 2/5/23 involved her air mattress sliding out from under her while she was transferring, using a sit to stand with one staff member, resulting in her falling to the floor. Resident #1 stated she was to have at least two staff helping with her sit to stand transfers. During an interview on 5/21/23 at 1:39 p.m., staff member C stated resident #1 had a history of falls at the facility. Staff member C stated he, staff member B, or staff member F, updated the resident's care plan after fall investigations were completed by the management team. During an interview on 5/21/23 at 1:56 p.m., staff member B stated after a fall, the care plans were updated with interventions…

    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 · Dcited before2023-05-22 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
    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 staff member adjusted the bed height, to prevent a fall during a transfer, for 1 (#1) of 2 sampled residents. Findings include: During an interview on 5/20/23 at 3:31 p.m., resident #1 stated she had fallen in the past at the facility, once at the toilet, and a few times near her bed. Resident #1 stated the fall on 2/5/23 involved her air mattress sliding out from under her while she was transferring, using a sit to stand with one staff member, resulting in her falling to the floor. Resident #1 stated she was to have at least two staff helping with her sit to stand transfers. During an interview on 5/21/23 at 1:19 p.m., staff member I stated resident #1 had fallen in the facility and had always been a resident who required a two-person physical assist with the resident's transfers. During an interview on 5/21/23 at 1:56 p.m., staff member B stated post fall investigations were documented in PCC, and staff involved in the falls would be educated. During an interview on 5/22/23 at 2:38 p.m., staff member B stated…

    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

“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.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to CASCADIA HEALTHCARE — 46 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 5 of 53.0+2.0 vs chain
Health inspection 4 of 52.8+1.2 vs chain
Staffing 3 of 52.7+0.3 vs chain
Quality measures 5 of 53.9+1.1 vs chain
The other 45 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.0★, per CMS)
1 of 5Caldwell Care of CascadiaCaldwell, ID 1 of 5Cascadia of BoiseBoise, ID 1 of 5Cherry Ridge of CascadiaEmmett, ID 1 of 5Coeur d Alene Health of CascadiaCoeur d'Alene, ID 1 of 5Colfax Health and Rehabilitation of CascadiaColfax, WA 1 of 5Colville Health and Rehabilitation of CascadiaColville, WA 1 of 5Curry Village Health And Rehab Of CascadiaBrookings, OR 1 of 5Eagle Rock Health and Rehabilitation of CascadiaIdaho Falls, ID 1 of 5Mount Ascension Transitional Care Of CascadiaHelena, MT 1 of 5Orchards of Cascadia, TheNampa, ID 1 of 5Spokane Valley Health And Rehabilitation Of CascadSpokane Valley, WA 1 of 5Teton Healthcare of CascadiaIdaho Falls, ID 2 of 5Cascadia of NampaNampa, ID 2 of 5Royal Plaza Health and Rehabilitation of CascadiaLewiston, ID 2 of 5Salem Transitional CareSalem, OR 2 of 5Secora Rehabilitation Of CascadiaPortland, OR 2 of 5Snohomish Health and Rehabilitation of CascadiaSnohomish, WA 3 of 5Arbor Valley of CascadiaBoise, ID 3 of 5Brookfield Health And Rehab Of CascadiaBattle Ground, WA 3 of 5Clarkston Health And Rehab Of CascadiaClarkston, WA 3 of 5Clearwater Health & Rehabilitation of CascadiaOrofino, ID 3 of 5Highland Health And Rehabilitation Of CascadiaBellingham, WA 3 of 5Northpark Health And Rehabilitation Of CascadiaPhoenix, AZ 3 of 5Shaw Mountain of CascadiaBoise, ID 3 of 5Weiser Care of CascadiaWeiser, ID 4 of 5Canyon West of CascadiaCaldwell, ID 4 of 5Cascadia of LewistonLewiston, ID 4 of 5Cove of Cascadia, TheBellevue, ID 4 of 5Grangeville Health & Rehabilitation of CascadiaGrangeville, ID 4 of 5Lewiston Transitional Care of CascadiaLewiston, ID 4 of 5Mountain Valley of CascadiaKellogg, ID 4 of 5Paradise Creek Health and Rehab of CascadiaMoscow, ID 4 of 5Stafholt Health And Rehabilitation Of CascadiaBlaine, WA 4 of 5Wellspring Health & Rehabilitation of CascadiaNampa, ID 5 of 5Alderwood Park Health And Rehab Of CascadiaBellingham, WA 5 of 5Aspen Park of CascadiaMoscow, ID 5 of 5Bend Transitional CareBend, OR 5 of 5Boswell Transitional Care Of CascadiaSun City, AZ 5 of 5Creekside Health and Rehabilitation of CascadiaEugene, OR 5 of 5Fairlawn Health And Rehabilitation Of CascadiaGresham, OR

Showing 40 of 45; lowest-rated first.

A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleSince
CASCADIA HC GROUP LLCOrganizationINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 06/05/2025
CASCADIA HEALTHCARE LLCOrganizationINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 03/01/2023
CASCADIA HOLDCO LLCOrganizationINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 06/05/2025
CASCADIA MONTANA OPERATIONS LLCOrganizationINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTsince 03/01/2023
HAMMOND, OWENIndividualINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 03/01/2023
LAFORTE, STEPHENIndividualINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 06/05/2025
NELSON, TIMOTHYIndividualINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 06/05/2025
EUREKA 10 REALTY, LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNFsince 06/05/2025
WHITE OAK HEALTHCARE FINANCE LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTERESTsince 03/01/2023
CASCADIA SERVICES LLCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 03/01/2023
CARVEY, DIANNAIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 05/01/2023
DEMMERLY, DANIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 03/01/2023

CMS files one row per role, so the 25 rows in the source record cover these 12 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.

7 organizational owners 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.

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.

$3.1M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
+2.4%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$158K
Related-party expense5% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 53%Medicare 5%Other / private 42%

This home reported $158K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. 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

$296per resident / day
operating cost
$8,993per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$303per day
avg. revenue, all payers

Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). 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 275084. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-06-05, 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