GALLATIN REST HOME
Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.
Gallatin Rest Home has a Trust Grade of C, which means it is average and falls in the middle of the pack for nursing homes. It ranks #13 out of 59 facilities in Montana, placing it in the top half, and it is the only nursing home in Gallatin County. However, the facility's trend is worsening, as the number of issues reported increased from 2 in 2024 to 7 in 2025. Staffing is a concern, with a turnover rate of 66%, higher than the state average, along with below-average RN coverage which is less than 94% of facilities in Montana. While the home has received some serious violations, including incidents where residents were not properly cared for during transfers and issues related to meal timing that left residents hungry, it also has strengths, such as a good overall star rating of 4 out of 5. Keep in mind the significant fines of $63,603, which suggest ongoing compliance issues. Overall, families should weigh the mixed performance indicators, particularly the staffing challenges and specific care incidents, when considering this facility.
- Trust Score
- C
- In Montana
- #13/59
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 66% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $63,603 in fines. Lower than most Montana facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ○ Average
- Each resident gets 38 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Montana. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 15 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.
The Bad
20pts above Montana avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Above median ($33,413)
Moderate penalties - review what triggered them
18 points above Montana average of 48%
The Ugly 15 deficiencies on record
Jun 2025
7 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
2. During an observation on 6/5/25 at 7:57 a.m., resident #13 received morning cares from staff members F and K. Resident #13 was lying on her back in the bed. Resident #13 had a wound dressing on her...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0552
(Tag F0552)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident, and the resident's representative, were made aware of the risks and benefits associated with the use of ...
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
Investigate Abuse
(Tag F0610)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to fully investigate an allegation of theft to ensure no other residents were affected for 1 (#34) of 21 sampled residents. Find...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to utilize a system for identifying root causes for falls, and failed to develop and implement individualized fall prevention st...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0698
(Tag F0698)
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 have policies for dialysis care and management, polic...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to review and revise resident care plans for 3 (#s 13, 32, and 43) of 21 sampled residents. Findings include:
1. During an obser...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain proper hand hygiene for 4 (#s 14, 16, 21, and 208) of 7 observed medication passes; failed to maintain cleanable sur...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2024
2 deficiencies
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0809
(Tag F0809)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to provide residents with meals with no more than 14 hours between the evening meal and breakfast; failed to provide a nourishing snack at bed...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure implementation and monitoring of measures to prevent the growth of Legionella or other opportunistic waterborne patho...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2023
6 deficiencies
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain scale equipment, resulting in a fall with an injury, for 1 (#28) of 2 sampled residents. Findings include:
Review of an incident f...
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
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to protect 1 (#33) of 3 residents from staff to resident verbal abuse, causing the resident psychosocial harm at the time, and s...
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
Investigate Abuse
(Tag F0610)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to thoroughly investigate an alleged abuse for 1 (#33) of 4 sampled residents. This deficiency had the potential for the facility to not ident...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff followed proper infection control practices of hand hygiene when providing meal service for residents dining in ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure kitchen staff wore proper hair and beard coverings while preparing and serving meals, and label and date food items lo...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
QAPI Program
(Tag F0867)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to perform annual performance improvement projects and involve QAPI in abuse system issues. Findings include:
During an interview on 6/8/23 at...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 2 harm violation(s), $63,603 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 15 deficiencies on record, including 2 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
- • $63,603 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Montana. Major compliance failures.
- • Grade C (50/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Gallatin Rest Home's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns GALLATIN REST HOME an overall rating of 4 out of 5 stars, which is considered 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 Gallatin Rest Home Staffed?
CMS rates GALLATIN REST HOME's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 66%, which is 20 percentage points above the Montana average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 67%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.
What Have Inspectors Found at Gallatin Rest Home?
State health inspectors documented 15 deficiencies at GALLATIN REST HOME during 2023 to 2025. These included: 2 that caused actual resident harm and 13 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Gallatin Rest Home?
GALLATIN REST HOME is owned by a government entity. Government-operated facilities are typically run by state, county, or municipal agencies. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 94 certified beds and approximately 50 residents (about 53% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in BOZEMAN, Montana.
How Does Gallatin Rest Home Compare to Other Montana Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Montana, GALLATIN REST HOME's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (66%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Gallatin Rest Home?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's high staff turnover rate.
Is Gallatin Rest Home Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, GALLATIN REST HOME 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 4-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 Gallatin Rest Home Stick Around?
Staff turnover at GALLATIN REST HOME is high. At 66%, the facility is 20 percentage points above the Montana average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 67%. RNs handle complex medical decisions and coordinate care — frequent RN changes can directly impact care quality. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?
Was Gallatin Rest Home Ever Fined?
GALLATIN REST HOME has been fined $63,603 across 2 penalty actions. This is above the Montana average of $33,715. Fines in this range indicate compliance issues significant enough for CMS to impose meaningful financial consequences. Common causes include delayed correction of deficiencies, repeat violations, or care failures affecting resident safety. Families should ask facility leadership what changes have been made since these penalties.
Is Gallatin Rest Home on Any Federal Watch List?
GALLATIN REST HOME 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.