2115 Central Ave, Billings, MT 59102 · Yellowstone County · (406) 656-6500
160 certified beds, about 116 residents a day · For profit - Individual · Medicare and Medicaid since 1969
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 275029 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on August 28, 2025, inspectors cited 7 health deficiencies (the Montana average is 11.2, the national average 9.2).
Of 59 health citations since June 2023, 6 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 4 fines totaling $142,698 in the last three years; the largest was $87,019, and the latest is dated May 6, 2026.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.15 hours per resident per day, against 4.05 across Montana and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.68 of those hours.
71.8% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Montana average 54.8%).
CMS links it to Eduro Healthcare, an affiliated group of 34 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 59 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to notify the resident's representative, in writing, of the reason for the transfer and the required bed-hold information for 1 (#9), of 10 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a staff member provided safe transportation of a resident being transferred to the facility for admission for 1 (#10) of 10 sampled residents. The deficient practice caused resident #10 injury, resulting in a left ankle fracture, requiring hospitalization and surgery, which prolonged the resident's stay at the facility. The facility identified that the resident was not transported safely and immediately addressed and corrected the deficient practice before the survey, resulting in the findings of past non-compliance.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure medications were transcribed into a resident's electronic medical record accurately, and failed to identify a high-risk medication ordered for a resident with end-stage renal disease for 1 (#6) of 4 residents sampled for dialysis. This deficient practice resulted in resident #6's altered mental status, requiring hospitalization and treatment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to complete a Significant Change MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment for a resident's change in condition, for 1 (#9) of 10 sampled residents. This deficient practice increased the risk of resident #9 not receiving services for his care to prevent further decline.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to complete and maintain resident documentation for PASARR (Preadmission Screening and Resident Review) assessment prior to admission for 1 (#9) of 3 residents sampled for PASARRs. The deficient practice increased the risk of resident #9 not receiving services for mental disorder or intellectual disability.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, facility staff failed to ensure a resident at risk for nutritional deficits was provided a therapeutic diet and had fluids limited as ordered by a provider for 1 (#6) of 4 residents sampled for dialysis. This deficient practice increased resident #6's risk of experiencing hyperkalemia and fluid imbalance as related to end-stage renal (kidney) disease, when she required treatment for hyperkalemia (high level of potassium) and altered mental status resulting in hospitalization.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, facility staff failed to complete an assessment of a resident's health status prior to and after returning from the dialysis center for 2 (#s 2 and 6) of 4 sampled residents receiving dialysis treatments. This deficient practice increased the risk of residents #2 and #6 to experience adverse outcomes related to complications from end-stage renal disease.
Inspectors wroteBased on the interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff responded to resident needs timely for a resident requiring assistance with activities of daily living for 1 (#4) of 7 sampled residents. The deficient practice increased the risk for adverse psychosocial outcomes and skin integrity issues. The facility identified the failure of staff to respond timely, addressed and corrected the deficient practice before the survey, resulting in the findings of past non-compliance.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to hire and employ a full-time social worker who met the regulatory requirements and to meet the mood, behavioral, emotional, and psychosocial needs of residents. The facility was licensed for 160 beds.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to include person-centered information in the resident comprehensive care plan to include measurable objectives and timeframes to meet medical, nursing, and psychosocial needs for 2 (#s 1 and 4) of 8 sampled residents. This deficient practice increased the risk of resident #4 not having psychosocial needs met, and for staff assisting with resident #1's care to not follow enhanced barrier precautions to prevent infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a provider reviewed a resident's total program of care during a single visit with the resident, when the resident fired the physician who left not finalizing the visit, but then no other physicians attempted to finish the assessment, for 1 (#4) of 8 sampled residents. This deficient practice caused resident #4 to be at risk of not receiving medications, treatments, and services for maintaining physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to assist a resident who requested mental health counseling to receive behavioral health services; when the resident had consistent documentation of emotional behaviors and concerns with her care staff that occurred since the date of admission, for 1 (#4) of 8 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide individualized medically related social services, and accurately and thoroughly assess a resident, for her mood, behavior, and psychosocial status, and the resident displayed mood symptoms and took an antidepressant, displayed anxiety, paranoia, would often refused care, and act out toward others; and the facility failed to ensure her care plan included individualized interventions for care staff to use when the resident did display symptoms or concerns of the mood, behavior, or psychosocial concerns; and she was not referred for mental health services, although this was identified as necessary, for 1 (#4) of 8 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to prevent the development of a pressure ulcer to the coccyx for 1 (#5) of 26 sampled residents. The resident's medical record failed to include consistent and accurate documentation to reflect if the wound was avoidable, although the resident was at risk for malnutrition and had a severe weight loss over recent months; and the facility implemented some interventions for prevention, but failed to thoroughly and consistently assess the wound and document the status of the pressure ulcer, such as the size, measurements, severity, characteristics and detail, and at one point, the wound was documented as a Stage IV with no defining characteristics as to why this was determined.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow interventions related to resident assistance, evaluate current abilities, and implement additional interventions and monitoring for a severe weight loss of 7.65% in one month, and the resident had a new diagnosis of Severe Protein Calorie Malnutrition, for 1 (#94) of 26 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to provide a wheelchair-accessible grievance box, so residents could submit a grievance independently or anonymously, and the box was not within reach for all the facility residents who used wheelchairs for mobility; and this failure affected 1 (#112) of 26 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident meal trays were served to the residents' rooms in a timely manner and according to the posted mealtimes for 3 (#s 19, 42, and 97) of 26 sampled residents, and it was reported the meals could be lukewarm and residents felt hungry due to having to wait so long for the room trays to be served.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to respect a resident's personal items. The staff cleaned the resident's room, disposing of personal resident items without the resident being present or aware of what was disposed. The lack of respect for the resident's belongings and environment caused the resident frustration, for 1 (#53) of 26 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow the doctor's orders for edema treatment for 2 (#s 12 and 80) of 26 sampled residents. This deficient practice increased the risk for serious complications related to the edema, especially due to their mobility issues.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow doctor's orders for oxygen treatment related to CPAP administration for 1 (#80) and nasal canula administration for 1 (#12); and failed to post an oxygen sign on the door or have full oxygen tanks for 1 (#12) of 26 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to prevent Immediate Jeopardy level accidents and hazards resulting in a resident with a traumatic brain injury eloping from the facility through unsecured doors, accessing a public road and leaving the facility property, without staff supervision, for 1 (#1) of 9 sampled residents. This failure placed other residents at risk for elopement if they successfully exited out the unsecured doors not equipped with a wander guard alarm system, for 5 (#s 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14) of 9 sampled residents. The facility's failure increased the risk of serious bodily harm, injury, impairment, or death, due to the facility's failure to sufficiently address the doors the resident eloped from. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff had the necessary education to monitor the functionality of the facility's wander guard alarm system for 6 (#s 1, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14) of 6 residents sampled for wandering and elopement risk. This failure increased the risk for the resident's attempting to elope.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to complete a thorough investigation involving a resident who had access to, and went out of, a door which was not alarmed with a wander guard alarm system. The resident left the facility property, accessing a public road, traveling 0.2 miles on foot without staff supervision. The facility failed to identify exit doors not equipped with a wander guard alarm system which would alert staff to redirect a resident prior to exiting an emergency egress door as a hazard for 1 (#1) of 9 sampled residents for wandering and elopement risk. The facility's failure to address these concerns placed this resident, and any others at risk of eloping, at continued risk of imminent harm.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to update a resident care plan with a new fall intervention identified by the IDT, for 1 (#7) of 9 sampled residents. The failure placed the resident at risk for recurrent falls and injuries.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure meals were served at an appetizing temperature to ensure resident satisfaction for 4 (#s 15, 16, 17 and 18) of 4 sampled residents for food satisfaction.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to provide equal access to quality care for 1 (#7) of 18 sampled residents. The resident was placed in a room without a sink, bathroom, or call light. The resident slept on a mattress placed on the floor.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide written notice for a room change, including the reason for the change, for 2 (#s 7 and 8) of 3 residents sampled for room changes.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify a resident's representative when a change in condition necessitating a transfer to a higher level of care for 1 (#1) of 4 residents sampled for appropriate transfer. Findings Include: During an interview on 3/25/25 at 11:05 a.m., NF5 stated she was not notified when resident #1 was admitted to an acute care hospital on 2/16/25. NF5 stated she was notified when resident #1 attempted to elope and became very agitated. But was not notified when the decision was made to transfer resident #1 to the hospital for a psychiatric evaluation. NF5 stated she did not know about the transfer or the admission until another family member arrived at the facility to visit and was told he was in the hospital. Review of resident #1's documents received from the acute care hospital, dated between 2/16/25 and 2/24/25, showed the following: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure each resident room was equipped with a sink and toilet for 1 (#7) of 18 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure each resident's sleeping area had functioning call light for 1 (#7) of 18 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure PRN (as needed) anti-anxiety medication was limited to 14 days for 1 (#49) of one sampled resident and failed to ensure an adequate indication of use for an antipsychotic for 1 (#99) of 1 sampled resident.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interviews, the facility failed to employ a Certified Dietary Manager, to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition services, for the facility. This failure increased the risk of negative outcomes for all residents residing at the facility and receive nutritional services.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure sanitary conditions were maintained throughout the kitchen, and the dietary storage areas. The facility failed to ensure kitchen staff wore beard coverings while serving food, failed to label and date food items in the walk-in cooler, failed to maintain a clean (dietary/kitchen) environment, and failed to have appropriate pest control. This deficient practice had the potential to cause foodborne illness to all who received food from the kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to identify, correct, and monitor quality-deficient practices effectively related to the kitchen cleanliness and pest control using the QAPI program. This failure increased the risk of negative outcomes for any resident who received food and or services from the dietary department.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to assure pest control in the kitchen, 200 and 300 halls, and a resident room for 1 (#65) of 43 sampled residents. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all residents served food from the kitchen, and all residents residing on the 200 and 300 halls.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to invite residents to care plan meetings for 4 (#s 21, 63, 89, and 91) of 43 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide a clean and sanitary environment for 3 (#s 32, 63, and 89); and failed to consistently clean the 300 hallway and resident rooms for 2 (#s 39 and 65) of 43 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure discontinued medications were properly disposed of or destroyed for 2 (#s 6 and 318) of 43 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the medication error rate was less than 5 percent, for 2 (#s 37 and 309) of 43 sampled residents. The medication error rate calculated to 11.54 percent, and there were multiple errors made for each resident, increasing the risk of a negative outcome.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide services to enable the residents to maintain their highest practicable level of functioning for 1 (#16) of 43 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from abuse by a staff member, for 2 (#s 304 and 305) of 43 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to identify a concave mattress as a potential restraint and did not complete a risk assessment, consent, or monitoring for 1 (#88) of 2 residents sampled for restraints.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure there was an effective process for providing foot care to diabetic residents for 1 (#91) of 43 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to identify the risk of a trip hazard by using a twin-size scoop mattress as a bedside fall mat for 1 (#91); and failed to protect a resident from hazardous materials for 1 (#89) of 43 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, it was found facility administration failed to hire and employ a Dietary Manager with appropriate competencies and skills sets to carry out the necessary functions of the food and nutritional services; and the facility dietitian did not schedule regular consultations and go onsite to work with the dietary manager and assist with oversight of nutritional services. This failure resulted in numerous concerns being identified in the dietary department (Refer fo F825.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure enhanced barrier precautions were followed when performing wound care and medication administration through a feeding tube, for 1 (#86) of 1 sampled resident; and failed to repair a worn recliner, resulting in an uncleanable surface, for 1 (#65) of 43 sampled residents. This deficient practice had the potential to increase the transmission of infectious agents for the residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure safe and proper operation of the kitchen equipment (the oven, dessert refrigerator, cooks' refrigerator, and ice machine). This deficient practice had the potential to affect any resident receiving food from the kitchen when the equipment is used for the preparation or storage of food.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to adhere to infection control practices for transmission-based precautions during a COVID-19 outbreak for 1 (#11) of 15 sampled residents. This deficient practice had the increased potential to spread COVID -19 in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, nursing staff failed to respect a resident's dignity by drawing a smiley face on a resident's buttocks when providing care for 1 (#10) of 15 sampled residents; failed to speak to a resident with respect while assisting with care for 1 (#12) of 15 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to obtain verbal or written consent, or complete an explanation of risks versus benefits with a resident's POA prior to giving an anti-psychotic medication, for 1 (#12) of 15 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident had her call light with in reach for 1 (#10) of 15 sampled resident. This deficient practice caused the resident to yell out for help instead of using the call light.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to investigate a facility reported incident thoroughly for a resident found, during cares, to have a smiley face on her buttock, and implement protective measures for the resident, for 1 (#10) of 15 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to limit an as needed anti-psychotic medication order to 14 days for 1 (#12) of 15 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, facility staff failed to ensure residents received adequate supervision and assistive devices to prevent accidents for 2 (#s 21 and 32) of 10 sampled residents, resulting in falls with fractures, and the potential for a fall related to the safe and appropriate use, by a staff member, for the sit-to-stand mechanical lift.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, facility staff failed to provide a clean homelike environment, and clean bugs out of light fixtures, for 2 (#s 44 and 85), and the soiled light fixtures were noticed by the two residents; one specifically felt the bugs were creepy.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide adequate staffing to assist with resident care needs, with respect to answering call lights in a timely manner, for 8 (#s 26, 29, 60, 89, 93, 98, 158, and 159) of 20 sampled residents; and, failed to provide showers as scheduled for 10 (#s 6, 25, 26, 29, 44, 45, 60, 89, 93, and 98) of 20 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, facility staff failed to maintain proper hand hygiene practices for 3 (#s 20, 21 & 70) of 5 sampled residents; clean and disinfect sit-to-stand lifts after use for 2 (# 20 and 21) of 2 sampled residents; failed to maintain a documented infection prevention surveillance program; failed to maintain a water management program to minimize the growth and spread of waterborne pathogens; and, failed to address unsanitary conditions in resident bathrooms, for 3 (#s 35, 45, and 89) of 7 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to complete a Significant Change MDS Assessment, for 1 (#105) of 2 sampled residents, who received hospice services.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff were competent in providing care and services for 1 (#108) of 2 sampled residents to prevent the worsening of facility aquired pressure ulcers; and failed to ensure direct care staff had the education to address cleanliness of resident bathrooms and for necessary cleaning, for 1 (#35) if 2 sampled residents.
26 fire safety citations on file: 9 on August 28, 2025, 11 on July 18, 2024, 6 on June 22, 2023.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| May 6, 2026 | Fine | $19,635 |
| May 6, 2026 | Fine | $23,600 |
| August 28, 2025 | Fine | $87,019 |
| August 28, 2025 | Payment Denial | 47 days from October 2, 2025 |
| June 4, 2025 | Fine | $12,444 |
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) | 3.15 | 4.05 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.68 | 0.98 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.80 | 3.59 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.80 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.67 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 71.8% | 54.8% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 75.8% | 48.3% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 2 |
CMS expects 3.41 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 3.29 on weekdays and 2.80 on weekends, 15% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 15.4% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.31 in April to June 2025 to 3.15 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 | 3.15 | 0.68 | 3.29 | 2.80 | 15.4% | 0 of 90 | 116 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.18 | 0.69 | 3.35 | 2.75 | 16.4% | 0 of 92 | 112 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.35 | 0.72 | 3.51 | 2.95 | 17.6% | 0 of 92 | 112 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.31 | 0.74 | 3.43 | 3.01 | 33.1% | 0 of 91 | 105 |
| 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.
| 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 | 24.4 | 18.7 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.3 | 2.1 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.0 | 2.9 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.7 | 4.4 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.0 | 1.3 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 26.1 | 17.2 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.7 | 6.3 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 29.5 | 20.4 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 27.3 | 19.2 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 18.3 | 14.5 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.5 | 1.4 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.4 | 2.2 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Yellowstone River Nursing and Rehabilitation's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it better than the national rate (60.6% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
60.6% this home
Better than 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. 285 eligible stays.
9.1% 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. 304 eligible stays.
5.5% 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. 153 eligible stays.
52.0% 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. 98 residents counted.
0.7% 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. 136 residents counted.
3.1% 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. 136 residents counted.
96.4% 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. 56 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: YELLOWSTONE NURSING AND REHAB CENTER LLC. CMS links this home to Eduro Healthcare, a group of 34 nursing homes averaging 2.5 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Caldwell, Sarah | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 06/01/2023 | |
| Bewsey, Michael | Corporate officer | Individual | 06/01/2023 | |
| Monroe, Dustin | Corporate officer | Individual | 06/01/2023 |
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.