The Living Centre
57 Main St, Stevensville, MT 59870 · For profit - Corporation · 50 certified beds · (406) 777-5411 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 (5/5)
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Jun 2024
- 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
- inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
- the CMS record shows $37,525 in federal fines (most recent 2024-06-03)
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) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 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 | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 4 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 3 to 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
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 | 11.5% | 18.7% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 6.1% | 6.2% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 2.1% | 0.9% | better 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 | 2.3% | 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 | 0.0% | 4.4% | 3.3% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 19.8% | 17.2% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 13.7% | 15.8% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 94.3% | 93.6% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 13.6% | 6.3% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 40.3% | 24.1% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 15.5% | 20.4% | 17.1% | typical |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 94.1% | 73.8% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 11.6% | 19.2% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 13.3% | 14.5% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.91 | 1.38 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.12 | 2.16 | 1.80 | better |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
44.7% 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 37 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 62.1% 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 29 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 0.27 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 41% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 68% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy at close to weekday levels right through 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 | 44.7%CMS range 28.2–60.0 | 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 | 9.8%CMS range 6.0–15.2 | 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 | 62.1% | 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 | 51.7% | 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 | 58.6% | 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 | 100.0% | 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 | 0.0% | 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 | 2.9% | 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 | 6.7%CMS range 3.8–13.9 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.09 | 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 50 beds and averages 36.6 residents a day — about 73% occupied, or roughly 13 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 5.49 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.04 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.86 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 5.08 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.65 on weekdays — 10% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.20 to 0.63 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 48% 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 unchanged from the previous inspection. 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.
10 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2023-12-07 · 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 interview and record review, the facility licensed nursing staff failed to thoroughly assess one resident to ensure appropriate transfer services and necessary medical assessments were completed and thoroughly documented after a resident's fall, and the resident sustained fractures, a broken tooth, and a head injury during the fall for 1 (#9). Nursing staff then directed CNA staff to transfer the resident from the floor using a mechanical lift, to her bed. This increased the risk for injury. Upon transfer to the ER, it was found the resident had significant injuries, to include fractures of her C-1 and C-2, a broken tooth, and a head laceration and was admitted to the Intensive Care Unit. The resident expired six days later at the faclity, and her care plan was not updated for fall prevention after returning; and, the facility failed to ensure a resident with multiple falls, to include with unjuries, was assessed for fall patterns and risks, and then update the resident's care plan as necessary with…
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 · G2024-06-03 · 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 one (#1) of 1 sampled resident from verbal and physical abuse by a caregiver. This deficiency caused the resident to cry out in pain and had the potential to affect the resident's mental health. Findings include: During an interview on 6/3/24 at 11:38 a.m., NF1 said she and her partner arrived at the facility, to take a resident to the Emergency Department, after the resident fell and was complaining of leg pain. NF1 said the resident was well known to the ambulance service. NF1 said when she and her partner arrived at the resident's room, staff member C met them at the door. Staff member D handed them the transfer paperwork and told them to wait outside the room. The resident had a soiled brief and needed to be cleaned up before they could transport her to the hospital. NF1 said as they were waiting outside the room, they overheard the resident screaming out in pain. NF1 said [Resident #1] can be dramatic at times but this screaming was way different than anything they had heard from her before. NF1 said they also…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-02-26 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to update a comprehensive care plan with a resident's preferences for tobacco use for 1 (#35) of 21 sampled residents. Findings include:During an observation and interview on 2/23/26 at 12:51 p.m., resident #35 was in his bed and stated he was waiting for lunch. An over-the-bed table was in front of him, and it had a can of [NAME] (Tobacco) pouches sitting on it. During an interview on 2/24/26 at 1:18 p.m., staff member G stated he did not know of any resident in the facility who used tobacco products. Staff member G stated the facility was a tobacco-free facility, and he had never seen resident #35 with tobacco products.During an interview on 2/25/26 at 10:01 a.m., staff member F stated resident #35 uses [NAME] pouches and was not sure of their ingredients. Staff member F looked up resident #35's physicians' orders, which showed that resident #35 had an order for nicotine replacement pouches and not tobacco pouches.During an interview on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-02-26 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to obtain a physician's order for oxygen for 1 (#15); and failed to ensure the residents' oxygen tubing was clean and changed regularly for 2 (#s 14 and 15) of 21 sampled residents. Findings include:1. During an observation on 2/23/26 at 12:48 p.m., an oxygen concentrator was observed in resident #14's room with a tag on the tubing that had written initials and a date of 1/21/26. The oxygen tube had water built up inside it.During an interview on 2/23/26 at 1:13 p.m., resident #14 stated she did not know when the oxygen tubing was last changed on her oxygen concentrator.Review of resident #14's medication administration record for February 2026 showed: Physician order: Change oxygen tubing every 15 days, every night shift every 15 day(s) for oxygen with a start date of 11/21/25. This was marked as being done on 2/4/26 and 2/29/26. During an observation on 2/25/26 at 8:00 a.m., there was a tag on the oxygen tubing with the written initials and date of 2/24/26. This showed the oxygen tubing had been changed out…
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 · D2025-01-30 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to include a resident's intermittent catheterization on a resident's care plan, for 1 (#2); and failed to create and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan related to trauma informed care, and the resident became upset related to events which occurred when the resident was in a past war, for 1 (#29) of 18 sampled residents. Findings include: 1. Review of resident #2's nursing progress notes, dated 12/4/24, showed the resident needed to be straight cathed due to an inability to urinate, and the resident had 650 cc of urine output. She was on antibiotics for a UTI. Review of resident #2's nursing progress notes, dated 12/24/24, showed the resident had 750 cc of urine removed via straight cath, after complaints she was unable to urinate. She was taking antibiotics for a UTI. Review of resident #2's physician orders, dated 7/12/24, showed, Check for bladder distention every 6 hours if distended straight cath . Review of resident #2's Urology notes, dated 9/3/24, showed she was seen by [Clinic Name] for intermittent…
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 · D2025-01-30 · tag F0699 — isolatedProvide care or services that was trauma informed and/or culturally competent.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide trauma informed care for a resident with PTSD, and the resident voiced having nightmares, and was identified as having hallucinations related to his time in Vietnam; and the facility did not identify concerns related to the PTSD and ensure a care plan was in place for staff to be able to meet his needs sufficiently (refer to F656 Comprehensive Care Plan), for 1 (#29) of 1 sampled resident for trauma informed care. Findings include: During an interview on 1/29/25 at 1:33 p.m., resident #29 stated, The work I do is classified by the federal government. I go on scary missions and crawl on my hands and knees in the jungle slitting the throats of the enemy. I don't like to do it, but I don't want them to sneak in and kill us in the night. I served in Vietnam. After I left Vietnam, they bombed all of them, and I think all the guys I worked with got killed. All of those thoughts have left me with bad nightmares, and it is awful. I was stuck out in the jungle looking for the enemy, I had to slit their throats because no…
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 before2025-01-08 · 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 report an alleged incident of verbal abuse to the State Survey Agency timely, as required, for 1 (#1) of 5 sampled residents. Findings include: A review of a facility reported investigation showed an incident with resident #1 occurred on 11/30/24 at 2:53 p.m. The date and time the facility reported the allegation to the State Survey Agency reporting portal, was on 12/2/24, and showed: [Resident #1] was not wanting to go to dining room. When asked why, resident stated that someone 'yelled' at her on Thanksgiving and just does not want to be around people. [sic] A review of a progress note for resident #1, dated 11/30/24 at 3:00 p.m., authored by staff member F, showed: . [Resident #1] has had behaviors today. she is refusing to go to dining room for meals. states that someone yelled at her on Thanksgiving and just does not want to be around people. when asked further resident can not articulate exactly what was said and who said it. she justs states her feelings were hurt . [sic] During an interview on 1/8/25 at 2:34 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 · Dcited before2024-06-03 · 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 report suspected abuse to the State Survey Agency, for one (#1) of one sampled resident. Findings include: During an interview on 6/3/24 at 8:45 a.m., staff member A stated she was not aware of the allegations of abuse for resident #1 until Adult Protective Services came to investigate the allegations. Staff member A said once the facility was aware of the allegation, she did an internal investigation and felt it was a he said, she said situation. Staff member A said she did not report the allegation to the State Survey Agency, as she thought the State Agency would already be aware of it, because Adult Protective Services investigated the allegation. Review of a facility document titled, [Resident #1] EMS Statement Investigation, showed the facility was aware of the allegation of abuse made by EMS personnel on 5/13/24. Review of the State Survey Agency reporting system failed to show a facility reported incident regarding the allegation of abuse for resident #1, made by the EMTs, for the 5/7/24 incident. Review of a…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-12-07 · tag F0636 — patternAssess the resident completely in a timely manner when first admitted, and then periodically, at least every 12 months.
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, it was identified the facility failed to ensure individualized fall care plans were updated, to reflect the identification and implementation of beneficial fall interventions, for residents with falls, for 2 (#s 4 and 9) of 5 sampled residents, and #4 had recurrent falls so the opportunity was missed several times for the care plan modifications, and #9 returned to the facility on comfort care with fractures, and with the various medical changes, the care plan was not modified to address them adequately. Findings include: 1. Record review of resident #9's Fall Risk Evaluation form, showed the resident was assessed and determined to be considered a high fall risk, effective 1/30/23. Review of resident #9's electronic medical record incident description, dated 2/11/23, showed: - Resident was being pushed down Bitterroot hall in W/C by [NF1] and 2 nurses in med room able to observe fall. Resident placed feet down in front of W/C. At that time resident fell out of chair with…
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 · B2024-01-31 · tag F0640 — patternEncode each resident’s assessment data and transmit these data to the State within 7 days of assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to submit Death in Facility MDS assessments for 2 (#s 17 and 33) and Discharge MDS assessments for 2 (#s 12 and 28) of 24 sampled residents. Findings include: Review of resident #33's EMR showed an admission date of 1/16/23, and a death date of 5/13/23. The Death in Facility MDS was to be completed by 5/20/23, and was 255 days overdue. Review of resident #17's EMR showed an admission date of 2/9/23, and a death date of 9/19/23. The Death in Facility MDS was to be completed by 9/26/23, and was 125 days overdue. Review of resident #28's EMR showed an admission date of 10/11/23, and a discharge date of 11/9/23. The Discharge MDS was to be completed by 11/23/23, and was 68 days overdue. Review of resident #12's EMR showed an admission date of 11/14/23, and a discharge date of 12/1/23. The Discharge MDS was to be completed by 12/15/23, and was 46 days overdue. During an interview on 1/30/24 at 8:37 a.m., staff member C stated she had been working in the facility for about one year, and had a few hours of training on completing 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.
“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
$37,525 in federal fines across 2 penalties.
- $24,876 — penalty dated 2024-06-03
- $12,649 — penalty dated 2023-12-07
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LIVING CENTRE LIMITED | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | 100% | since 09/01/2013 |
| WATKINS, JORDAN | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2024 |
| WATKINS, KYLE | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2024 |
| WATKINS, WILLIAM | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2024 |
| BECKER, LEANNE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2022 |
| KIRKLAND, BRENDA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/08/2024 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 18 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 275125. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-02-26, 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.