Faith Lutheran Home

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

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.

Staffing

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 60 beds and averages 41.1 residents a day — about 68% occupied, or roughly 19 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the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026.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 4.79 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.06 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.33 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 4.00 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.12 on weekdays — 22% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 1.19 to 0.75 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 35% is below 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.

28 citations, most serious first. The 11 most serious are shown; the remaining 17 are one tap away and print in full.

• Actual harm · Gcited before2024-05-08 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
  Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to identify a resident's elopement risk or implement interventions following an elopement for 1 (#31) of 4 residents sampled for elopement, and failed to implement, monitor, and modify fall interventions to prevent multiple falls for 1 (#50) of 6 residents sampled for falls. Findings include: 1. During an interview on 5/8/24 at 12:33 p.m., staff member A stated resident #31 had made some requests to leave the facility to visit his friend. Staff member A stated approximately two or three weeks prior to his elopement, resident #31 had gone to the door to leave, but staff stopped him from exiting. Staff member A stated no elopement assessment had been done, prior to his elopement and he was not identified as an elopement risk. The resident did not have a history of eloping and had been at the facility an extended period of time. Review of resident #31's interdisciplinary progress notes on 11/8/23, at 3:07 a.m., showed resident #31 was not in his room. 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.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2026-05-21 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — pattern
  Timely 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 submit reportable incidents to the State Survey Agency, within 24 hours of the incident, for 7 (#s 13, 14, 15, 22, 25, 29, and 38) of 17 sampled residents. Findings include: 1. Review of a Facility-Reported Incident, dated 3/2/26, showed there was an incident involving resident #25 making derogatory statements towards resident #13. The report showed when resident #25 was asked to stop, he became angry, and threw two empty, and one partially full cup of juice, at the staff members present during the incident. The incident was submitted to the State Survey Agency via the online reporting portal on 3/5/26, three days after the incident occurred. During an interview on 5/20/26 at 2:15 p.m., staff member C stated they were the only staff member who knew how to submit a reportable incident via the online reporting portal, so if an incident occurred on a weekend, it had the potential to be reported late. Staff member C stated she did not know why the incident involving resident #13 and #25 was not submitted timely, within 24…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2026-05-21 · tag F0947 — failed to train nurse aides adequately — pattern
  Ensure nurse aides have the skills they need to care for residents, and give nurse aides education in dementia care and abuse prevention.
  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 provide 12 hours of in-service training per year, including dementia management, for Certified Nursing Assistants. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all residents with dementia or altered cognition in the facility. Findings include:During an interview on [DATE] at 9:30 a.m., staff member G stated she routinely worked in the memory care unit and received general orientation when she started working at the facility. Staff member G stated she had not received any additional training related to the care of residents in the memory care unit or any dementia training in general. Staff member G stated she had not received any training on how to deal with residents who have displayed problematic behaviors. During an interview on [DATE] at 7:47 a.m., staff member H stated she had experience working with residents with dementia. Staff member H stated she had not received any additional dementia training since starting at the facility. During an…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Nursing and Physician Services Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-05-21 · tag F0552 — isolated
  Ensure that residents are fully informed and understand their health status, care and treatments.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident, and/or the resident's representative, were made aware of the risks and benefits associated with the use of psychotropic medications prior to the start of treatment for 2 (#s 2 and 3) of 17 sampled residents. Findings include:1. Review of resident #2's physician orders showed the following psychotropic medication was being given to the resident:- 12/30/25 to 4/30/26: alprazolam 0.25 mg tablet twice daily, as needed, for anxiety.Review of resident #2's EHR, accessed between 5/18/26 and 5/21/26, failed to show documentation the resident, or their representative, were made aware of the risks and benefits of using the above listed psychotropic medication.2. Review of resident #3's physician orders showed the following psychotropic medications were being given to the resident:- 12/30/25 to 1/2/26: lorazepam 0.5 mg tablet three times daily, as needed, for anxiety.- 1/3/26 to 5/21/26: lorazepam 0.5 mg tablet send one tablet with resident to dialysis for possible anxiety while there.- 5/6/26 to 5/21/26:…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-05-21 · tag F0605 — failed to not use drugs as a restraint — isolated
  Prevent the use of unnecessary psychotropic medications or use medications that may restrain a resident's ability to function.
  What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

  Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure an as needed psychotropic medication was limited to 14 days, unless the rationale for continuing the medication was documented by a medical provider, for 1 (#2) of 17 sampled residents. Findings include:Review of resident #2's medication administration record, dated 1/1/26 through 4/30/26, showed an order for alprazolam 0.25 mg, take two tablets, twice daily, as needed for anxiety.Review of resident #2's medication administration record, dated 5/1/26 through 5/19/26, showed an order for alprazolam 0.5 mg one tablet daily, as needed for anxiety.Both of resident #2's psychotropic medication orders for alprazolam did not include an end or stop date, and were not limited to 14 days.During an interview on 5/26/26 at 3:30 p.m., staff member F stated as needed psychotropic medication orders were limited to 14 days. Staff member F stated the alprazolam could have been missed during the medication regimen review for resident #2.

  Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-05-21 · tag F0641 — isolated
  Ensure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to accurately complete a Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for a resident receiving hypoglycemic medication for 1 (#7); and failed to accurately complete a Comprehensive MDS assessment for 1 (#5) of 17 sampled residents. Findings include: 1. Review of resident #7's electronic medical record showed the resident was diagnosed with Diabetes Mellitus and was currently prescribed Trulicity (a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist) to be given once a week subcutaneously. Review of resident #7's Quarterly MDS assessment, with an ARD of 3/14/26, showed, Section N: Mediations, Insulin, Insulin injections Record the number of days that insulin injections were received during the last 7 days or since admission/entry or reentry if less than 7 days (N0350A). The answer marked by the facility was 1. During an interview on 5/21/26 at 8:49 a.m., staff member D stated she was new to the MDS role. Staff member D stated resident #7 was prescribed Trulicity and received an injection once a week. Staff member D stated the medication…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-05-21 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolated
  Ensure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the pharmacist identified and reported an as needed psychotropic medication being used in excessive duration for 1 (#2) of 17 sampled residents. Findings include:Review of resident #2's Medication Administration Record, dated 1/1/26 to 5/21/26, showed alprazolam 0.25 mg twice a day, as needed for anxiety. This was an active prescription written on 12/31/25.Review of resident #2's Medication Regimen Reviews, dated 1/1/26 to 4/30/26, showed the following recommendations by the pharmacist:- January 2026 - Do not crush omeprazole, levothyroxine take on an empty stomach, rinse mouth after taking Symbicort.- February 2026 - Do not crush omeprazole, levothyroxine take on an empty stomach, rinse mouth after taking Symbicort, do not crush duloxetine.- March 2026 - Do not crush omeprazole, levothyroxine take on an empty stomach, rinse mouth after taking Symbicort, do not crush duloxetine.- April 2026 - no issues.The Medication Regimen Reviews showed a lack of monitoring for resident #2's as needed psychotropic medication,…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-05-21 · tag F0887 — isolated
  Educate residents and staff on COVID-19 vaccination, offer the COVID-19 vaccine to eligible residents and staff after education, and properly document each resident and staff member's vaccination status.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain documentation of the COVID-19 vaccination status (received or refused) for staff member E. Findings include:During an interview on 5/20/26 at 8:59 a.m., staff member C stated she was not aware the facility needed to offer employees education on where a COVID-19 booster vaccination could be obtained and the facility's responsibility to document in the employee's record they had been educated and given a referral on where to obtain the booster vaccination. During an interview on 5/20/26 at 2:30 p.m., staff member E stated she had received two COVID-19 vaccinations in 2021, but no additional vaccinations since. Staff member E stated she did not sign a declination form for additional booster vaccinations.Review of staff member E's COVID-19 vaccination documentation, dated 7/8/21, showed staff member E received COVID-19 vaccinations on 1/6/21 and 2/3/21.Review of the facility's policy titled, 7.91 SARS-2 Vaccine Program, dated July of 2021, showed: POLICY:Immunization of health care personnel (HCP) is recommended help…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-11-19 · tag F0627 — isolated
  Ensure the transfer/discharge meets the resident's needs/preferences and that the resident is prepared for a safe transfer/discharge.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident was discharged in a safe condition after previously accepting admission and responsibility for the resident from out of town for 1 (#1) of 1 resident sampled for inappropriate discharge. This deficient practice was corrected on 6/4/25 and determined to be past non-compliance. Findings include: Review of a facility incident report, dated 6/3/25, showed resident #1 had been refused admission to [Facility Name]. Resident #1 had arrived from several hours away via contracted ambulance, and her local family had met her at the facility. Staff determined the family members were too intoxicated to sign admission paperwork, and the staff present would not accept resident #1. The resident left with family and staff did not contact the administrator or other management. There was no safe discharge plan in place. During an interview on 11/19/25 at 8:50 a.m., staff member A stated they had not been aware of the situation with the resident being denied admission until the very next day. Staff member A contacted 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.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
• Potential for harm · F2025-04-23 · tag F0640 — widespread
  Encode 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

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure MDS assessments were completed, encoded, and transmitted, within the required timeframe, for 1 (#196) of 14 sampled residents, and failed to ensure the assigned staff member had the knowledge necessary to correct MDS transmission errors. The failures resulted in inaccurate and missing MDS data, which was identified during the annual recertification survey process. Findings include: 1. During an interview on [DATE] at 8:15 a.m., staff member D said she did not know how to correct or add a re-entry MDS when a resident returned from the hospital. Staff member D said resident #196 did not have a re-entry MDS and was now due for a quarterly assessment. Staff member D said she recently started completing MDS assessments and only had three days of MDS training at the facility. Review of resident #196's nurse progress note, dated [DATE], showed resident #196 was discharged to the hospital on [DATE]. Review of resident #196's nurse progress note, dated…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · F2025-04-23 · tag F0801 — widespread
  Employ sufficient staff with the appropriate competencies and skills sets to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service, including a qualified dietician.
  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 dietary manager completed a certification program approved by a national certifying body or had higher education in a related field. This had the potential to affect residents and their nutritional status, or meal safety for those who consumed food prepared and served by the facility. Findings include: During an observation of the kitchen, on 4/22/25 at 7:50 a.m., no documentation of advanced training for the dietary manager was posted or readily available. During an interview on 4/22/25 at 8:00 a.m., staff member E said she had come out of retirement a couple months ago when the dietary manager left. Staff member E said she would help the facility until they could advertise and find a new manager. During an interview on 4/23/25 at 4:01 p.m., staff member A said the interim dietary manager came out of retirement to help the facility. Staff member A said staff member E's certified dietary manager certification expired about three years ago. Staff member A said there was no certified dietary manager…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“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.

Fines & penalties

$22,825 in federal fines across 1 penalty.

• $22,825 — penalty dated 2024-05-08

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

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

What families pay in MT