Tobacco Root Mountains Care Center
326 Madison St, Sheridan, MT 59749 · Government - County · 39 certified beds · (406) 842-5600 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- CMS has flagged it for abuse
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Apr 2026
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0605, F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has 2 actual-harm citations
- the CMS record shows $22,205 in federal fines (most recent 2026-04-01)
- its payroll-based staffing score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (1/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (73%) runs well above the national median (45%)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 1 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the staffing score rests on the facility's own payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 1 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 1 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 4 to 2 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 | 17.1% | 18.7% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 8.0% | 6.2% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 9.9% | 2.1% | 0.9% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 2.9% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 14.3% | 5.6% | 6.5% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 7.9% | 0.6% | 0.1% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 12.7% | 4.4% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 23.2% | 17.2% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 11.8% | 15.8% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 93.6% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 7.7% | 6.3% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 33.6% | 24.1% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 18.9% | 20.4% | 17.1% | 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.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.03 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 1% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 20% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | not reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | not reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not 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 SNFs | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 39 beds and averages 14.9 residents a day — about 38% occupied, or roughly 24 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 7.05 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.74 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 4.65 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 6.37 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 7.32 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.91 to 1.30 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 73% is well above the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
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.
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.
11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · G2026-04-01 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility staff failed to proactively identify and address the risks a heater posed to a dependent resident when the heater was next to the resident's bed, and the resident sustained second degree burns on her left calf, left toes, left heel, left foot, and the entire bottom of her left foot from the heater, for 1 (#1) of 10 sampled residents. Findings include: 1 . Resident #1 - Heater Burn Review of a facility document, titled Self-Inflicted Injury, dated 2/20/26, showed resident #1's left leg was found hanging off the bed, and it was on the baseboard heater. Two staff members moved the resident's leg back onto the bed. The resident's leg was assessed, and the resident was found to have a second-degree burn to the left leg and foot, which was draining fluid and bleeding. The resident was not responsive to verbal or physical stimuli at the time and was not able to state whether she had pain or not from the injury. The nurse placed cold rags (cloths) on 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.
- Actual harm · G2026-04-01 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate pain management for a resident who requires such services.
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 interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure adequate pain management for 2 (#s 1 and 2) of 10 sampled residents. This deficient practice resulted in residents #1 and #2 having moderate and severe pain during the last day of life. Findings include:1. During an interview on [DATE] at 7:53 a.m., staff member N stated resident #1 was always in a lot of pain when staff did checks and changes.During an interview on [DATE] at 4:10 p.m., staff member O stated she and the physician were doing walking rounds, and the physician wanted resident #1 to have PRN pain medications immediately due to signs of significant pain. Staff member O stated she had notified staff member B, who then instructed the floor nurse to administer pain medication immediately. Staff member O stated the floor nurse did not administer the PRN pain medication for more than four hours after she was told to give the PRN medication. Staff member O stated the floor nurse was fearful of giving the pain medication because she had…
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 · F2026-05-21 · 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 ensure safe labeling of food storage in accordance with professional standards for food service safety, placing all residents at risk for consumption of expired or contaminated food and for food-borne illness. This deficient practice increased the risk of negative outcomes for all residents receiving food services from the facility. Findings include:During an observation on 5/18/26 at 1:59 p.m., of the walk-in coolers, the following items were not labeled:- Two sandwich bags with fruit,- One gallon jug of salad dressing,- An opened bag of grapes with no opened-on date.During an interview on 5/20/26 at 2:34 p.m., staff member E stated the procedure of labeling opened containers and repackaged containers included marking containers with the name of what is in the container and the date to be used by.A review of the facility's policy titled, Food Receiving and Storage, with an origination date of 6/11/20, showed, 8. All foods stored in the refrigerator or freezer will be covered, labeled and dated ('use by'…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-05-21 · tag F0605 — failed to not use drugs as a restraint — isolatedPrevent the use of unnecessary psychotropic medications or use medications that may restrain a resident's ability to function.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to indicate a specific duration for the extended use of an as needed psychotropic medication past 14 days for 1 (#15) of 11 sampled residents. This deficient practice increased the risk of negative outcomes for residents on as needed psychotropic medications. Findings include:Review of resident #15's MAR, for May 2026, showed, lorazepam oral concentrate 2 MG/ML, give 0.25 ml by mouth every 2 hours as needed for prophylaxis related to unspecified psychosis not due to a substance or known psychological condition with a start date of 10/3/25. The order did not indicate the duration for the as needed order.Review of resident #15's GDR for lorazepam, dated 2/18/26, showed, [Status Post] major [cardiovascular accident]. [Previous] on hospice. Now palliative plan in place, decline potentially at any time. [sic]Review of resident of #15's GDR for lorazepam, dated 3/19/26, showed, Palliative care plan in place. Expected decline. Need to maintain available. [sic]Review of resident of #15's GDR for lorazepam, dated 4/16/26, showed,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-04-01 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to protect a resident from staff to resident abuse for 1 (#5) of 10 sampled residents. Findings include:During an interview on 3/12/26 at 10:44 a.m., staff member A stated the staff were educated on abuse immediately during the investigation, which was related to a abuse allegation involving resident #5 and NF9, on 2/14/26. Staff member A stated IDT reviewed every incident and adverse events including abuse were reviewed in QAPI. The facility followed its policy in reporting and investigating abuse. NF9 was no longer employed by the facility after the investigation.During an interview on 3/12/26 at 10:57 a.m., staff member B stated she was home when she got the call from staff for an allegation of verbal abuse of resident #5 by NF9. Witness statements and the camera showed NF9 pulling the [resident #5's] walker with gestures to hurry, and the staff member directed resident #5 from the dining area to her room. Staff member B stated the provider, staffing agency, and family were notified of the alleged abuse. Staff member B…
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 · D2026-04-01 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to initially report an incident of suspected resident-to-resident abuse to the State Survey Agency within the required timeframe for 2 (#s 5 and 6) of 10 sampled residents. Findings include: Review of a facility reported incident sent to the State Survey Agency, showed on 7/5/25 (a Saturday) residents #5 and #6 got into an altercation. The nurse did not immediately report the incident up the chain of command to the DON or Administrator. The delay in the nurse reporting continued the risk to the residents until the altercation was identified on 7/7/25 (a Monday) during a chart review. The facility attempted to report the initial abuse allegation on 7/7/25, but the submission was not saved. The facility did not attempt to resubmit the incident to the State Survey Agency. The facility submitted the full investigation, including the initial report, on 7/11/25. The initial report was late. During an interview on 3/12/26 at 10:44 a.m., staff member A stated the incident between residents #5 and #6 happened over the weekend and 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 · D2026-04-01 · tag F0726 — failed to have competent, trained nursing staff — isolatedEnsure that nurses and nurse aides have the appropriate competencies to care for every resident in a way that maximizes each resident's well being.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure nurses were competent to provide pain management for hospice and end-of-life care for 2 (#s 1 and 2) of 10 sampled residents. This deficient practice resulted in unnecessary pain for residents #1 and #2. Findings include:1. During an interview on 3/31/26 at 4:10 p.m., staff member O stated she and the physician were doing walking rounds, and the physician wanted resident #1 to have PRN pain medications immediately due to signs of significant pain. Staff member O stated she notified staff member B, who then instructed the floor nurse to administer pain medication immediately. Staff member O stated the floor nurse did not administer the PRN pain medication for more than four hours after she was told to give the PRN medication. Staff member O stated the floor nurse was fearful of giving the pain medication because she had been reprimanded the prior day for giving too much PRN pain medication to a resident. During an interview on 4/1/26 at 8:03 a.m., staff member J stated she second-guessed herself about giving…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-04-09 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to prevent an incident of physical and verbal abuse for 1 (#1) of 12 sampled residents. The event was identified as past non compliance due to the facility's actions. Findings include: Review of the facility reported incident, dated 12/18/24, showed resident #1 was seated in the dayroom, with his left leg elevated in a recliner. Staff member E had moved resident #1's wheelchair due to another event in the dayroom. Resident #1 became upset, yelled for his wheelchair to be replaced next to his recliner. Staff member E aggressively replaced his wheelchair next to his recliner, hitting his left leg with the wheelchair. When staff member E left the dayroom, she yelled, Is that what you wanted. Resident #1 was notably upset, assessed for injuries, with a dime sized reddened area noted on his left lower leg. Staff member E was removed from further interactions with any of the residents, while an investigation took place. Review of staff member E's employee file, on 4/8/25, showed she was last educated on the facility's…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-04-10 · 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 staff failed to revise the care plans for 2 (#s 16 and 73) of 14 sampled residents. This deficient practice negatively affected resident #16 due to a lack of pain control in her legs, and after resident #73 was readmitted from the hospital, the staff did not have adequate directions for the provision of care and services for the resident. Findings include: During an observation on 4/8/24 at 3:23 p.m., resident #16 was sitting in her wheelchair, propelling herself down the hallway. Resident #16's shoes appeared to be tight, and her feet and legs appeared swollen. During an observation and interview on 4/9/24 at 9:24 a.m., resident #16 was sitting in a wheelchair and had propelled herself into her room. Resident #16's shoes appeared to be tight, the tops of her socks had left indentations on both her legs. Resident #16 pointed to her legs and stated, My legs are puffy all the time, and get uncomfortable from time to time. During an observation and interview on 4/10/24 at 8:40 a.m., resident #16 was sitting in 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.
- Potential for harm · D2024-04-10 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility staff failed to ensure medications were given within the one-hour time period before or after the prescribed administration time for 1 (#4) of 14 sample residents; and failed to ensure the residents safely swallowed the medications for 2 (#s 2 and 10) of 14 sampled residents. This deficient practice may result in an increased risk for adverse effects and/or complications with choking or aspiration. Findings include: 1. During an observation on 4/9/24 at 12:27 p.m., staff member J administered the medications: baclofen, cholecalciferol, TUMS, and desvenlafaxine to resident #2. Shortly after resident #2 had the medications in his mouth, staff member J turned and walked away from the resident without ensuring he had fully swallowed the medications. Resident #2's mouth was still moving and he was still swallowing the medication. During an observation on 4/9/24 at 12:56 p.m., staff member J administered the medications gabapentin and keflex to resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-04-10 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed maintain a system to ensure cloth recliners in the resident dayroom were monitored for necessary cleaning for infection control prevention. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all residents who utilized the dayroom, and used the recliners, as it increased the risk for the spread of infectious agents. Findings include: During an observation on 4/8/24 at 3:43 p.m., a strong urine smell was noted in the resident dayroom. In the dayroom eight recliners were cloth like material with a brown, cloth chair like cover placed over the original cloth recliners. Six of the recliners had residents sitting in them. During an interview on 4/8/24 at 3:44 p.m., staff member K stated she did not know when the recliners were cleaned or what the cleaning schedule was for the recliners. During an interview on 4/8/24 at 4:11 p.m., staff member O stated the chair covers are taken off and washed weekly, on night shift. Staff member O stated if the chair cover is soiled, it was taken off right away and sent to laundry,…
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
$22,205 in federal fines across 1 penalty. 1 Medicare payment denial on record.
- $22,205 — penalty dated 2026-04-01
- Medicare payment denial — starting 2026-05-05 for 49 days
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MADISON COUNTY FINANCE | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 01/01/1966 |
| ALLHANDS, DANIEL | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2017 |
| FORSYTHE, JAYNE | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 02/06/2020 |
| HART, JAMES | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2007 |
| NYE, RONALD | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2015 |
| ONEILL, BONNIE | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 02/06/2020 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 9 rows in the source record cover these 6 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
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.
A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2024). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in MT
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 275147. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-05-21, 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.