601 N 10th St., Hamilton, MT 59840 · Ravalli County · (406) 363-2273
58 certified beds, about 51 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1990
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 275135 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on January 28, 2026, inspectors cited 11 health deficiencies (the Montana average is 11.2, the national average 9.2).
Of 28 health citations since December 2023, 3 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists 3 fines totaling $59,962 in the last three years; the largest was $31,185, and the latest is dated April 23, 2026.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.70 hours per resident per day, against 4.05 across Montana and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.69 of those hours.
CMS links it to The Goodman Group, an affiliated group of 9 nursing homes.
Federal rules call for a standard inspection at least every 15 months, plus a visit whenever a complaint is filed. Each mark below is one citation, colored by how serious inspectors rated it. How to read a citation.
Under each citation, the quoted text is the inspector's own summary from the federal statement of deficiencies (CMS form 2567), word for word apart from a privacy scrub; CMS removes residents' and staff names before it publishes the text. The full notes are on Medicare.gov.
CMS rates every citation by how much harm it caused (rows) and how many residents it touched (columns). The count in each box is this home's, across all 28 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident received care for the prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers; failed to complete and document the pressure ulcer/skin assessments, treatments, and services to promote healing, and prevent infection, for 1 (#7) of 3 sampled residents for pressure ulcers/skin care. This deficient practice resulted in skin breakdown and resident #7 developing a large Stage IV pressure ulcer, which became infected, requiring hospitalization and treatment, and the staff reported the resident's behaviors, anxiety, and pain made care difficult.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that food items stored in the walk-in cooler were dated and labeled appropriately. This deficient practice placed all residents at risk for foodborne illnesses.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to provide meaningful activities to meet the needs of dementia residents for 6 (#s 1, 4, 5, 9, 12, and 14) of 11 sampled residents with dementia. This deficient practice resulted in residents in the memory unit wandering without activities, remaining in rooms throughout the day, and sitting and staring at blank televisions.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to closely monitor and address a resident's lack of bowel movements and provide as-needed medications to treat and prevent constipation, for a resident who had a history of opioid induced constipation and had used constipation medications before admission, for 1 (#7) of 20 sampled residents. This deficient practice resulted in resident #7 having an extensive stool burden.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, facility staff failed to ensure hand hygiene was completed while providing care for a resident's infected wounds/skin for 1 (#16) of 3 sampled residents for wound care. This deficient practice placed all residents receiving care from these staff members at risk of exposure to infectious agents and resident #16 at risk of a spread of skin cellulitis to his right leg.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to complete comprehensive resident assessments in accordance with the required timeframe of 14 days after admission for 4 (#s 2, 3, 25 and 41) of 10 sampled residents. The failure had the potential to prevent the residents from achieving their highest practicable level of function.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff followed appropriate hand hygiene when passing meal trays, increasing the risk of bacterial transmission to all residents who received meals in their rooms.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain a completed POLST (Provider Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment), including the resident or resident representative signature showing the residents preferences for Provider Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment in the medical record, for 1 (#33) of 22 sampled residents. This deficient practice had the potential for the resident to receive life sustaining care against her wishes.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to provide a resident or resident representative with a notice of transfer/discharge, or a bed hold notice, when the resident was transferred to the hospital for 1 (#53) of 22 sampled residents. This deficient practice increased the risk that the resident would not be fully prepared for transfer.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to complete a comprehensive resident assessment within 14 days after the facility determined there had been a significant change in the resident's physical and or mental condition for 1 (#4) of 10 sampled residents and their MDS assessments. The failure had the potential to prevent the residents from achieving their highest practicable level of function.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to complete a Quarterly resident assessment in accordance with the required timeframe of 14 days after the ARD for 2 (#s 16 and 23) of 10 sampled resident assessments. The failure had the potential to prevent the resident from achieving their highest practicable level of function.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide restorative services to a resident in an attempt to prevent the resident from a deterioration in her range of motion, when she was not able to extend her arms or complete some of her own ADL care, and the facility did not follow their policies and procedures for restorative care for 1 (#5) of 22 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to assess a resident for injury after a fall, increasing the risk of delayed treatment for 1 (#46) of 22 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to provide meals at regularly scheduled times, causing a resident to become frustrated for 1 (#31) of 22 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store food in a sanitary manner, increasing the risk of foodborne illness for all residents receiving food from the dietary department.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to designate an individual who worked at least part time at the facility as the dedicated Infection Preventionist. The deficient practice had the potential for an ineffective infection prevention program and placed all residents in the facility at risk of infection and exposure to pathogens.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to provide sufficient staff for the Memory Care Unit residents, to ensure monitoring and assistance with safety, provision of ADL care, meal assistance, and abuse prevention for 6 (#s 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, and 10); and failed to ensure staff were available to assist with resident bathing/showering, as needed, for 10 (#s 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18) of 18 sampled residents. The failure to provide ADL bathing/shower assistance made some residents feel dirty, and they appeared unkempt or neglected.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record reviews, a staff member displayed verbally abusive behavior to residents residing in the secure unit. The facility identified the verbal abuse, reported it, investigated the event, and implemented corrections. This event was identified to be past non-compliance.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide regular showers for 10 (#s 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18) of 18 sampled residents, and some of the residents felt dirty and or were upset by the failure.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to complete a thorough investigation on a staff to resident verbal abuse and neglect allegation, by failing to complete resident monitoring, failed to carry out interventions identified and documented on the report, and failed to complete other resident interviews to rule out other concerns of abuse by the staff member, for 2 (#s 17 and 18) of 18 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to provide services, treatment, and interventions for 1 (#1) of 18 sampled residents, who displayed physical and verbal indicators of pain and or discomfort, and verbal and physical behaviors towards others. The resident was experiencing a cognitive and functional decline, and would call out for help, or make comments of not wanting to live or being afraid. Staff failed to use identified interventions to assist the resident when she was upset or provide activities of interest.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff were educated on the importance of Enhanced Barrier Precautions and failed to ensure staff used the appropriate Personal Protective Equipment for 2 (#s 3 and 4) of 18 sampled residents. This deficient practice increased the risk of infection for residents with urinary catheters.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow the required discharge process to include obtaining physician orders to discharge the resident from the facility; failed to obtain physician orders to setup up home health post discharge as care planned; and failed to document discharge planning communication, and the day of discharge process, including when, where to, what the discharge orders for care were for 1 (#1) of 6 sampled residents. This failure led to the resident not having proper support in place at the discharge location, and subsequently, the resident returned to the hospital for continued care.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to complete a thorough investigation on an event of staff to resident abuse by failing to complete resident monitoring, failed to carry out interventions identified and documented on the report, and failed to complete other resident interviews to rule out other concerns of abuse by the staff member, for 1 (#2) of 6 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident at risk for nutritional deficits was monitored to prevent the resident from having severe weight loss, for 1 (#30) of 19 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain safe and palatable temperatures for food served to residents in their rooms for 3 (#s 3, 13, and 18) of 19 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a POLST form was completed to include a resident or decision-maker signature, and that the form was readily accessible in the electronic medical record, for 1 (#1) of 19 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility discontinued bed assist rails, when a resident used the rails for positioning, and she felt unsafe in the bed with the bars removed, and felt she could not move safely in bed after the removal, and the facility failed to have the necessary assessment to show she was assessed for the bar removal, for 1 (#35) of 16 sampled residents.
19 fire safety citations on file: 5 on January 28, 2026, 3 on December 5, 2024, 11 on December 5, 2023.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| April 23, 2026 | Fine | $31,185 |
| August 27, 2025 | Fine | $9,243 |
| August 27, 2025 | Payment Denial | 2 days from September 27, 2025 |
| December 5, 2024 | Fine | $19,534 |
A payment denial means Medicare and Medicaid stopped paying for new admissions for that period.
Hours of care per resident per day, from the payroll records every home sends CMS. Higher means more staff time with each resident.
| Measure | This home | Montana | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 3.70 | 4.05 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.69 | 0.98 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.41 | 3.59 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.58 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.43 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | not reported | 54.8% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | not reported | 48.3% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | not reported |
CMS expects 3.32 hours a day for residents as sick as this home's (its case-mix figure). The staffing star compares the two.
Every nursing home sends CMS its staff hours for each day (the Payroll Based Journal). Here they are added up by quarter. The latest quarter is the one behind the figures above. In January to March 2026, nursing staff hours per resident were 3.82 on weekdays and 3.41 on weekends, 11% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.0% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 1.17 in April to June 2025 to 3.70 in January to March 2026.
| Quarter | All nursing staff | Registered nurses | Weekdays | Weekends | Contract staff share | Days with no RN hours | Residents a day |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.70 | 0.69 | 3.82 | 3.41 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 51 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.74 | 0.72 | 3.82 | 3.55 | 2.2% | 0 of 92 | 40 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.18 | 0.82 | 3.24 | 3.02 | 7.1% | 0 of 92 | 39 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 1.17 | 0.33 | 1.21 | 1.08 | 0.0% | 61 of 91 | 34 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Montana, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.91 | 0.89 | 4.10 | 3.46 | 11.6% | 0.4% of days |
Hours per resident per day: staff hours in the quarter divided by resident days (the daily census CMS derives from resident assessments). Registered nurses include the director of nursing and RNs with administrative duties; aides include nurse aides in training and medication aides, as in CMS's own staffing measure. How these are calculated.
Staff pay reports
No staff pay figure for this home has passed review yet. A figure appears only after at least 5 reports from at least 3 different people, sent over at least 60 days, have passed review. If you work here, your report helps start one.
| Job | Median | Middle half | Employed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Montana, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $19.67 | $18.29 to $22.86 | 4,390 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $29.91 | $27.95 to $32.14 | 1,620 |
| Registered nurses | $41.00 | $38.56 to $48.46 | 10,950 |
| United States, nursing care facilities | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $20.67 | $17.91 to $22.55 | 534,270 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $33.86 | $30.05 to $37.40 | 188,210 |
| Registered nurses | $41.11 | $37.85 to $47.68 | 142,270 |
Hourly wages; the middle half runs from the 25th to the 75th percentile. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, May 2025. BLS has no separate estimate for medication aides. These are survey estimates for whole occupations, not figures for any one home.
The measures CMS uses for the quality star. Lower is better for every one of them.
| Measure | This home | Montana | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 20.0 | 18.7 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.8 | 2.1 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 2.9 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.8 | 4.4 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 1.3 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.5 | 17.2 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.0 | 6.3 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 23.7 | 20.4 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 17.4 | 19.2 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 11.9 | 14.5 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.4 | 1.4 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.9 | 2.2 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for The Valley Health and Rehab's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (55.2% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
55.2% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · Montana: 7 better, 2 worse
Rate of successful return to home or community from a SNF (risk-standardized discharge to community rate). Higher is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 40 eligible stays.
10.1% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Montana: 0 better, 0 worse
Rate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 49 eligible stays.
6.3% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 7.1% · Montana: 0 better, 0 worse
Percentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2023 to September 2024. 28 eligible stays.
48.4% this home
Median of homes: Montana58.5% · US 56.6%
Percentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 31 residents counted.
0.0% this home
Median of homes: Montana0.3% · US 0.0%
Percentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay. Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 43 residents counted.
6.3% this home
Median of homes: Montana2.8% · US 1.7%
Percentage of residents with pressure ulcers or pressure injuries that are new or worsened (adjusted rate). Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 43 residents counted.
100.0% this home
Median of homes: Montana97.0% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 27 residents counted.
Source: CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program - Provider Data, released 2026-09-30. Better, no different and worse are CMS's own comparisons with the national rate, after adjusting for how sick residents were. Medians of homes and the state counts are worked out by us from the same file.
Legal business name: DISCOVERY CARE CENTRE, LLC. CMS links this home to The Goodman Group, a group of 9 nursing homes averaging 3.4 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Goodman Family Operating Foundation | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 07/26/2021 |
| Brouwer, Lawrence | Contracted managing employee | Individual | 10/01/2012 | |
| Zwicker, Michael | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 08/31/2023 | |
| Edinger, Craig | Corporate director | Individual | 07/26/2021 | |
| Goodman, Shane | Corporate director | Individual | 07/26/2021 | |
| Knacke, Clinton | Corporate director | Individual | 07/26/2021 | |
| Reiling, Mark | Corporate director | Individual | 07/26/2021 | |
| Salmen, Thomas | Corporate director | Individual | 07/26/2021 | |
| Weichert, James | Corporate director | Individual | 07/26/2021 | |
| Wilson, Mark | Corporate director | Individual | 07/26/2021 | |
| Knacke, Clinton | Corporate officer | Individual | 07/26/2021 | |
| Salmen, Thomas | Corporate officer | Individual | 07/26/2021 | |
| Wilson, Mark | Corporate officer | Individual | 07/26/2021 |
As listed in the CMS ownership file, which names owners with a 5% or greater stake and the people and companies with operational or managerial control.
Chosen from this home's own inspection record.
These are the official offices in Montana. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.