COMMUNITY NURSING HOME OF ANACONDA
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
The Community Nursing Home of Anaconda has a Trust Grade of C+, indicating it is slightly above average in terms of care quality. It ranks #2 out of 59 facilities in Montana, placing it in the top half, and #1 in Deer Lodge County, meaning there are no better local options. The facility shows an improving trend, with the number of reported issues decreasing from 9 in 2023 to 4 in 2024. Staffing is a strong point, boasting a 5/5 star rating and a turnover rate of 32%, which is significantly lower than the state average of 55%. However, the facility has faced $24,131 in fines, which is concerning, and incidents like failing to properly implement fall prevention measures for residents and not adequately addressing pressure injuries indicate areas that need improvement. Overall, while there are strengths in staffing and recent improvement trends, families should be aware of past incidents that could impact resident safety and care quality.
- Trust Score
- C+
- In Montana
- #2/59
- Safety Record
- Moderate
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 32% turnover. Near Montana's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $24,131 in fines. Lower than most Montana facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 74 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than 97% of Montana nursing homes. RNs are the most trained staff who catch health problems before they become serious.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 21 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (32%)
16 points below Montana average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.
The Bad
14pts below Montana avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
The Ugly 21 deficiencies on record
Aug 2024
4 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide dignity for a resident when transferring the resident to the shower room for 1 (#9) of 10 sampled residents. Findings...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to consult wound care services consistently to promote wound healing, and failed to sufficiently document the wound measurements, severity (St...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive care plan based...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0679
(Tag F0679)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide residents with group and individual activitie...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2023
8 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Notification of Changes
(Tag F0580)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify the physician of a severe weight loss for 1 (#7) of 2 sampled residents. Findings include:
During an interview on 8/29/23 at 12:31 ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0604
(Tag F0604)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident was free from a physical restraint, for 1 (#8) of 1 sampled resident. Findings include:
During an observatio...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to prevent and promote healing of skin breakdown for 1 (#8) of 1 sampled resident. Findings include:
During an observation on 8/2...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
2. During an observation on 8/28/23 at 11:55 a.m., resident #8 was in her room in her recliner, lying flat in the seat, with chair reclined, and her feet up in the reclined position. The chair remote ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0692
(Tag F0692)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to identify and provide interventions for a resident with a severe weight loss of 10% in three months, for 1 (#7) of 2 sampled residents. Find...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to document a rationale for extending a PRN psychotropic medication beyond 14 days, for 2 (#s 3 and 11) of 2 sampled residents. Findings inclu...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Room Equipment
(Tag F0908)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to secure a bed cane, and provide a fully functioning be...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to remove expired medical supplies from the medical supply room and the ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2023
1 deficiency
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to identify the direct root causes of falls for implemen...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2022
8 deficiencies
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to prevent the development and worsening of a pressure i...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to report a 5-day investigative findings on a fracture of unknown source for 1 (#17) of 5 sampled residents.
Review of a Facility Reported Inc...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0637
(Tag F0637)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to complete a Significant Change MDS assessment for 1 (#15) of 1 resident sampled, after the resident discharged from hospice services. Findin...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain a complete person-centered care plan for 1 (#118) of 4 sampled residents.
During an interview on 8/16/22 at 10:44 a.m., staff memb...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0744
(Tag F0744)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review ,the facility failed to provide nonpharmacological interventions for a resident's yelling out and wandering behaviors, for 1 (#118) of 1 sampled resi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow infection control standards of practice for pressure injury wound care, having the potential to contaminate a resident...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0638
(Tag F0638)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to complete timely admission and Significant Change MDS's, having the potential to affect the residents' care and services provided, for 4 (#s...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
2. During an interview on 8/16/22 at 12:31 p.m., staff member A stated she was unaware elopements needed to be investigated. She also sought clarification on if being found outside on the front porch ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • 32% turnover. Below Montana's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • 21 deficiencies on record, including 2 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
- • $24,131 in fines. Higher than 94% of Montana facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
About This Facility
What is Community Of Anaconda's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns COMMUNITY NURSING HOME OF ANACONDA an overall rating of 5 out of 5 stars, which is considered much above average nationally. Within Montana, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.
How is Community Of Anaconda Staffed?
CMS rates COMMUNITY NURSING HOME OF ANACONDA's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 32%, compared to the Montana average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care. RN turnover specifically is 56%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.
What Have Inspectors Found at Community Of Anaconda?
State health inspectors documented 21 deficiencies at COMMUNITY NURSING HOME OF ANACONDA during 2022 to 2024. These included: 2 that caused actual resident harm and 19 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Community Of Anaconda?
COMMUNITY NURSING HOME OF ANACONDA is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 62 certified beds and approximately 17 residents (about 27% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in ANACONDA, Montana.
How Does Community Of Anaconda Compare to Other Montana Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Montana, COMMUNITY NURSING HOME OF ANACONDA's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (32%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Community Of Anaconda?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?"
Is Community Of Anaconda Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, COMMUNITY NURSING HOME OF ANACONDA has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 5-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Montana. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.
Do Nurses at Community Of Anaconda Stick Around?
COMMUNITY NURSING HOME OF ANACONDA has a staff turnover rate of 32%, which is about average for Montana nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.
Was Community Of Anaconda Ever Fined?
COMMUNITY NURSING HOME OF ANACONDA has been fined $24,131 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Montana average of $33,320. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.
Is Community Of Anaconda on Any Federal Watch List?
COMMUNITY NURSING HOME OF ANACONDA is not on any federal watch list. The most significant is the Special Focus Facility (SFF) program, which identifies the bottom 1% of nursing homes nationally based on persistent, serious quality problems. Not being on this list means the facility has avoided the pattern of deficiencies that triggers enhanced federal oversight. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review the facility's inspection history directly.