Polson Health & Rehabilitation Center
9 14th Ave W, Polson, MT 59860 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 70 certified beds · (406) 883-4378 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0602), cited Nov 2025
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- a high number of inspection citations overall (15) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $17,404 in federal fines (most recent 2024-09-12)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 25.3% | 18.7% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.9% | 6.2% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.7% | 2.1% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 3.2% | 2.9% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 4.3% | 5.6% | 6.5% | better |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.6% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 2.1% | 4.4% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 22.8% | 17.2% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 17.1% | 15.8% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.9% | 93.6% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 7.3% | 6.3% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 25.7% | 24.1% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 14.9% | 20.4% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 50.0% | 73.8% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 19.9% | 19.2% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 11.6% | 14.5% | 12.0% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.13 | 1.38 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.17 | 2.16 | 1.80 | worse |
‡ 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.
48.0% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 57 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 28.6% 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 21 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 0.25 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 34% 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
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 48.0%CMS range 36.0–58.7 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 8.4%CMS range 4.9–14.6 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no 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 discharge | 28.6% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS 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 discharge | 23.8% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 33.3% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS 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 identified | 96.8% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS 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 setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not 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 stay | 3.2% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.4%CMS range 3.2–11.3 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.82 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS 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
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 70 beds and averages 51.5 residents a day — about 74% occupied, or roughly 18 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.13 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 1.60 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 2.64 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.33 on weekdays — 21% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 1.13 to 0.69 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 50% 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
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.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
15 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · G2024-09-12 · tag F0742 — isolatedProvide the appropriate treatment and services to a resident who displays or is diagnosed with mental disorder or psychosocial adjustment difficulty, or who has a history of trauma and/or post-traumatic stress disorder.
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 provide psychiatric services for 1 (#40) of 1 resident with the diagnoses: Borderline Personality Disorder, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder, Epilepsy, Other Drug Induced Secondary Parkinsonism, as shown in resident #40's EHR. Findings include: During an interview on 9/10/24 at 1:40 p.m., NF2 stated, [Resident #40] has emotional breakdowns and crying. So, I know the meds are holding her together, but they're not quite right . NF2 expressed frustration during the conversation and stated she knew resident #40 was not completely okay because she was still having hallucinations, and she never used to, prior to admission. NF2 stated, No, I do not think this is her new normal. NF2 stated she had tried numerous times to get in touch with a nursing home facility closer to her location, but it had been weeks, and there were no changes or updates. NF2 stated, It is hard to care for [#40] when she is four hours away. NF2 stated she was hoping at her physical location there were more psychiatric…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-11-17 · tag F0602 — failed to protect residents from theft of their belongings — patternProtect each resident from the wrongful use of the resident's belongings or money.
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 systems were in place to prevent multiple incidents of misappropriation of a residents' medication for 9 (#s 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 23, 38, 48, and 52) of 25 sampled residents. Findings include:Review of the facility reported incident (for alleged misappropriation of residents' medication) which was reported to the State Survey Agency on 8/24/25 at 10:00 a.m., showed a staff member reported the possible diversion of residents' medication by staff member L. An investigation into the allegations was initiated and three nurses were suspended pending the results of the investigation. During an interview on 9/22/25 at 3:30 p.m., staff member A stated the incident of misappropriation of medications was reported to him by a CNA (certified nursing assistant). The unidentified CNA stated there were two nurses that had knowledge of the medication diversion. Staff member A stated during the investigation it was discovered two nurses had suspicion of misappropriation of medications but failed to report their suspicions to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-11-17 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — patternTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
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 staff members M and N reported a reasonable suspicion of a crime, related to diversion of medication, in a timely manner to administrative personnel. Findings include: Review of the facility reported incident (for failure to report a reasonable suspicion of a crime), which was reported to the State Survey Agency on 8/25/25 at 1:30 p.m., showed staff members M and N potentially failed to report a concern of possible medication diversion to leadership personnel at the facility. An investigation was initiated, and the two nurses were suspended pending the results of the investigation. The investigation showed staff member N had a conversation with staff member M at the beginning of August 2025, related to suspicion of staff member L and signs of medication diversion, but had not reported those concerns to leadership. Staff member M had suspicions of medication diversion over the course of months, but failed to relay those concerns to staff member N, until early August 2025. During an interview on 9/22/25 at 3:30 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.
- Potential for harm · D2025-11-17 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately 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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the physician was notified of a weight gain greater than 3 pounds in 2 days or 5 pounds in a week for 1 (#22) of 25 sampled residents. Findings include: During an interview on 9/24/25 at 9:39 a.m., staff member C stated the physician was to be notified of a weight gain greater than three pounds in one day for resident #22. Staff member C stated shortness of breath was a sign of weight gain. Staff member C stated it was hard to tell what was causing the weight gain for resident #22.During an interview on 9/25/25 at 9:40 a.m., staff member C stated resident #22 had edema and weight gain. Staff member C stated she would need to look up the parameters for weight gain. Staff member C stated she was not aware of any shortness of breath in resident #22.During an interview on 9/25/25 at 9:50 a.m., staff member K stated resident #22 was to be weighed every day and she was to report the weight back to the nurse. Staff member K stated she was to report any changes to the nurse.During an observation and interview…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-09-12 · tag F0675 — failed to support quality of life — patternHonor each resident's preferences, choices, values and beliefs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to answer call lights timely, for 6 (#s 9, 17, 24, 36, 39, and 202) of 13 sampled residents. Findings include: 2. During an interview on 9/10/24 at 7:52 a.m., resident #202 stated during breakfast she can wait up to 30 minutes after pushing the call button. During an interview on 9/10/24 at 7:59 a.m., resident #39 stated the average call light wait time was an hour. He stated, One time it was three hours when I fell down a couple of months ago. During an interview on 9/9/24 at 3:10 p.m., resident #17 stated the average call light wait time was ten minutes. Resident #17 stated the longest he had waited for a call light to be answered was 45 minutes, in the evening. Resident #17 stated, In the evening, I can hear them messing around and talking down the hall. Resident #17 stated, One night I was having chest pains. They took a long time, and it (the chest pain) was gone by then (the time they came). During an interview and observation on 9/10/24 at 8:15 a.m., resident #24 reported she always waits longer in the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-09-12 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
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 the advance directive for 1 (#17) of 1 resident located in the Disaster Recovery Binder, easily accessible to staff during an emergency. Findings include: Review of resident #17's EHR showed: Advance Directives. Review of resident #12's EHR showed: For Advance Directives and Code Status, see Disaster Recovery binder at nursing station. During an observation on 9/11/24 at 9:55 a.m., resident #17's POLST was not located in the disaster recovery book. During an interview and observation, on 9/11/24 at 9:58 a.m., staff member I stated, I do not see it (#17's POLST in the Disaster Recovery Binder). It would be in the B section. Staff member I stated they (staff) would have to look on Point Click Care (electronic health record) in the uploaded documents, when they explained would staff would find a resident's POLST if it was missing from the Disaster Recovery Binder. During an interview on 9/11/24 at 1:45 p.m., staff member A stated, It (#17's POLST) should have been in the book (Disaster Recovery Binder).…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-09-12 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop 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 ensure a resident's care plan accurately showed the resident's current non-use of interventions for a wheelchair cushion, and for bedside rails, for 1 (#37) of 13 sampled residents. Findings include: During an observation on 9/9/24 at 4:04 p.m., resident #37 was hunched over, sleeping in his wheelchair, with a thin pillow under him and his right leg on the bed. The bed was flat and had no siderails or bar attachments. During an observation and interview on 9/11/24 at 11:20 a.m., resident #37 was sitting on a pillow in his wheelchair. His bed was flat, in a low position, with no bed rails, no pillow, he had one shoe on. Resident #37 did not know what a siderail was and said he never had one, he would just stand up from his wheelchair. During an observation and interview on 9/11/24 at 9:47 a.m., staff member E stated, resident #37 never slept in his bed, only in his wheelchair, because he said the bed and recliner were uncomfortable. Staff member E went into resident #37's room and asked to see his wheelchair.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-09-12 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
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 provide sufficient interventions for 1 (#40) of 2 residents who had severe weight loss. Resident #40 was self-limiting her intake which contributed to the weight loss. This resident had the diagnoses: Borderline Personality Disorder, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder, Epilepsy, Other Drug Induced Secondary Parkinsonism, as shown in resident #40's EHR and was not consulted with psychiatry. Findings include: Review of resident #40's EHR showed resident #40 weighed 172.4 pounds on 6/4/2024, and she weighed 151.0 pounds on 9/3/2024. This was a 12.41% severe weight loss. Review of a facility provided document, Nutrition/Dietary Note, dated 9/12/24, showed: Resident shows 12.9% loss over 3 months, weight hx shows resident weight of 172.4# on 6/4/24 and weight of 145.1# on 7/9. Between these weight recordings resident was discharged from facility due in part to mental health concerns and weight on 7/9 . [sic] Review of resident #40's EHR showed the following weights: - 3/4/24 weighed 177.6…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-09-12 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to follow physician orders to change oxygen tubing for 1 (#34) of 3 sampled residents. This increased the potential for respiratory infection and medical decline. Findings include: During an observation on 9/9/24 at 3:46 p.m., resident #34's oxygen tubing on the portable tank was dated with a piece of tape dated 8/11/24. The tubing on the concentrator being used by resident #34, at that time, was also dated 8/11/24. A review of resident #34's physician's order, dated 3/23/24, showed, O2 tubing to be changed Q2 weeks and prn. During an interview on 9/11/24 at 9:58 a.m., staff member E stated the treatment book has the changes scheduled for the night shift. She stated, It gets charted in TAR when changed. Sometimes the nurse will change it or sometimes the nurse may delegate the task to a CNA. During an observation on 9/11/24 at 10:30 a.m., the tape on the oxygen tubing for resident #34 still read 8/11/24, for both the concentrator, and the portable tank. During an interview on 9/12/24 at 8:40 a.m., staff member…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2024-05-20 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure 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
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to have and maintain a sanitary kitchen, staff failed to follow hygienic practices, and failed to take and record temperatures for food storage and for food during meal service. These deficient practices had the potential to affect all residents consuming food from the facility kitchen. Findings include: A. Sanitary Kitchen During an observation of the facility kitchen on 5/18/24 at 11:53 a.m., multiple areas of concern for cleanliness showed: - A large window located above the meal serving line and clean dishes was opened several inches and had a buildup of grey and brown dust on it. - A standing black fan, not in current use, had the blades and wire cage covered in grey and brown dust. - The ceiling air vents, ceiling, and the wall over the cooking area were covered in grey and black dust buildup. - The refrigerator labeled, Kitchen's Fridge had chocolate syrup splashed over the top shelf wall and door. The bottom two drawers had an orange congealed substance in them. - An unopened, thickened apple juice was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-05-20 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — patternTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
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 report an injury of unknown origin to the State Survey Agency for 1 (#9) in the required timeframe; and failed to report incident findings to the State Survey Agency within the five-day required time frame, for 5 (#s 1, 5, 8, 10, and 11) of 11 sampled residents. Findings include: 1. Review of a facility reported incident, occurring on 4/8/24, showed resident #9 went to another facility for a follow up MRI, as the resident had previous back issues, and a T11 (thoracic) fracture was found. The facility was not sure if the fracture was old or new. The facility reported this fracture as an injury of unknown origin, to the State Survey Agency, on 4/10/24, two days after the facility was notified of the results. Review of resident #9's nursing progress note, dated 4/8/24 at 3:24 p.m., showed staff member J wrote a note showing, Resident went to [Hospital Name] for MRI. Report stated that she has a new T11 fx (fracture towards the bottom of the thoracic…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-11-06 · tag F0655 — patternCreate and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
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 create baseline care plans with the necessary information to safely address the resident's needs, within the 48-hour timeline, for 4 (#s 2, 3, 6, and 8) of 8 sampled residents. Findings include: 1. During an interview on 11/6/23 at 11:33 a.m., NF1 stated resident #6 was transferred to the facility from the hospital, and NF1 did not recall talking about the resident's baseline care plan. During an interview on 11/6/23 at 3:01 p.m., staff member A stated the facility did not have a baseline care plan for resident #6 and her admission on [DATE]. Review of resident #6's EMR showed the resident was admitted on [DATE] and discharged on 10/13/23. The resident's care plan showed interventions were initiated after the resident was discharged , on 10/17/23. 2. During an interview on 11/6/23 at 1:25 p.m., NF2 stated her goals for resident #8 included improving hygiene and the resident's nutrition status. During an interview on 11/6/23 at 1:58 p.m., 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.
- Potential for harm · D2023-08-30 · tag F0554 — isolatedAllow residents to self-administer drugs if determined clinically appropriate.
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 resident was safe to self-administer medications, before leaving the medications at bedside, causing an increased risk for medications not being taken as the physician prescribed, for 1 (#15) of 5 sampled residents for self-administration of medications. Findings include: During an observation and interview on 8/28/23 at 3:22 p.m., resident #15 was lying in bed. There was a clear medication cup with medications, a bottle of nasal spray, and two tubes of cream on the bedside table. Resident #15 stated he had just come back from dialysis. During an interview on 8/29/23 at 1:46 p.m., staff member E stated she had left the medications on resident #15's bedside table, the previous day, for resident #15 to take. Staff member E stated resident #15 had medication which needed to be taken with food, so she left the medications on the bedside table, and left the room. Staff member E stated she knew the proper assessments and consents had not been completed for resident #15 to self-administer his medications,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-08-30 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement 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 ensure a PRN (as needed) psychotropic medication prescription had a rationale for continuation, and stop date, for 1 (#33) of 5 sampled residents taking psychotropic medications. Findings include: During an interview on 8/30/23 at 12:35 p.m., staff member B stated she talked to NF2 about the need for a stop date for resident #33's PRN trazodone, but NF2 did not want to add a stop date, as he wanted the resident to always have the option to have the medication. Staff member B stated there was going to be a meeting about the stop date issue during resident #33's next medication review. During an interview on 8/30/23 at 12:43 p.m., resident #33 stated she had been sleeping well and had not used the PRN trazodone that often. During an interview on 8/30/23 at 1:09 p.m., staff member A stated the facility had a back-up provider that could sign off on monthly pharmacy medication recommendations if NF2 was unavailable. Review of resident #33's MAR showed a physician order for, traZODone HCl Oral Tablet (Trazodone HCl) Give 25 mg…
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.
- No harm found · C2024-09-12 · tag F0732 — widespreadPost nurse staffing information every day.
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 legible daily nurse staffing posting was placed with the required information, including the census, and that is was posted in an area easily accessible to residents or anyone wishing to view the information. This deficient practice would affect anyone wanting to view the information. Findings include: During an interview and record review on 9/14/24 at 12:17 p.m., staff member A stated the nursing staff kept using the same old copy of the daily nurse staffing posting, so it was hard to read. Staff member A stated he would get a blank master copy to show what was printed for staffing. The copies for the dates requested only had handwritten numbers readable, and none of them showed the resident census number. During an observation on 9/11/24 at 3:53 p.m., the daily nurse staffing posting was posted high on a bulletin board behind the nurses' station. Only handwritten numbers were readable, the copied form information was not. None of the numbers written were the facility census. Review of the facility…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
$17,404 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $17,404 — penalty dated 2024-09-12
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to EVERGREEN HEALTHCARE GROUP — 44 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 →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 4 of 5 | 2.5 | +1.5 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 2.4 | +1.6 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 3.3 | +0.7 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 3.0 | ≈ chain avg |
The other 43 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.5★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 43; 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 / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| PACIFIC NORTHWEST 12 LEASED OPERATIONS HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 08/31/2023 |
| POLSON SNF OPERATIONS LLC | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/20/2025 |
| CH PNW 12 HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 08/31/2023 |
| WITZCORP PNW 12 LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 08/31/2023 |
| CHEEKS, DONALD | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/31/2023 |
| HERZKA, YISROEL | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 08/31/2023 |
| YENOWITZ, YITZCHOK | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/31/2023 |
| HOHN, JAMES | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/31/2023 |
| SPIELMAN, SHIMON | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/31/2023 |
| COUVE FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/09/2025 |
| COUVE HEALTHCARE CONSULTING LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/10/2025 |
| PNW 12 OPCO MANAGEMENT LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/10/2025 |
| PNW 12 SNF CONSULTING LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/10/2025 |
| ENSUNCHO, JOANN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/31/2023 |
| WRIGHT, THOMAS | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/31/2023 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 32 rows in the source record cover these 15 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.
8 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.
This home reported $101K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. 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 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
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
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Montana Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 275049. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-11-17, 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.