ST LUKE COMMUNITY NURSING HOME
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
St. Luke Community Nursing Home has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the facility's quality of care. It ranks #37 out of 59 nursing homes in Montana, placing it in the bottom half of facilities in the state, and it is the second out of two options in Lake County. Unfortunately, the facility's situation appears to be worsening, with issues increasing from 2 in 2024 to 6 in 2025. While staffing is a strength, with a 5-star rating and a turnover rate of only 30%, which is much lower than the state average, there are serious concerns regarding resident safety. The facility has incurred $86,764 in fines, which is higher than 81% of Montana facilities, suggesting ongoing compliance problems. Specific incidents include a failure to implement effective fall prevention measures, resulting in a resident's major injury and subsequent blindness, and not using safety straps during transfers, leading to another resident's fall. Additionally, there were concerns about food safety due to improper labeling in the kitchen, putting residents at risk for foodborne illnesses.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Montana
- #37/59
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 30% turnover. Near Montana's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $86,764 in fines. Lower than most Montana facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 93 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
- 18 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
-
4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (30%)
18 points below Montana average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Near Montana average (3.0)
Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities
16pts below Montana avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Well above median ($33,413)
Moderate penalties - review what triggered them
The Ugly 18 deficiencies on record
Mar 2025
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff utilized safety straps for sit-to-stan...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0583
(Tag F0583)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure personal privacy resulting in a resident feeling uncomfortable and imprisoned, for 1 (#4) of 19 sampled residents, and...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Unnecessary Medications
(Tag F0759)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure medication error rates were under 5% for 2 (#s 17 and 24) of 9 sampled residents for medication errors. The medicati...
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 safe labeling of food storage in accordance with professional standards for food service safety, placing residents at ...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain documentation of its ongoing QAPI program efforts which de...
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, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff changed gloves and performed hand hygiene when moving from a contaminated task to a clean task during the provisi...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2024
2 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0583
(Tag F0583)
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 protect a resident's right to privacy of their body f...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0919
(Tag F0919)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation and resident interview, the facility failed to provide an emergency call light system for 2 (#s 10 & 27) of 2 residents sampled for call light concerns. Findings include:
During a...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2023
10 deficiencies
1 IJ
CRITICAL
(J)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Someone could have died · 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 evaluate and implement individualized and affective f...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0625
(Tag F0625)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide the resident, and the resident's representative, with written bed hold information, prior to an emergent transfer to the ER, for 1 ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the kitchen staff were wearing facial hair coverings in the kitchen and when serving food to residents. This had the p...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Staffing Data
(Tag F0851)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to submit quarterly staffing information, based on the facility's quarterly payroll data, to CMS for the PBJ report. Findings include:
During ...
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
2. During an observation on 3/13/23 at 12:51 p.m., resident #11 was sleeping in a chair, with a chair alarm attached. Resident #11 was lethargic, falling asleep and confused, unable to complete the re...
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 and record review, the facility staff assisting in the dining room failed to complete proper handwashing and or sanitation while aiding 5 residents. This failure may have allowed ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Administration
(Tag F0835)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the system used for fall prevention included the necessary measures to protect and address residents who were at risk for falls, and...
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 develop and implement a Performance Improvement Project due to the high number of facility falls; and failed to monitor prophylactic antibi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Antibiotic Stewardship
(Tag F0881)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure antibiotic stewardship was followed and monitored, including prescribing ongoing prophylactic antibiotics for chronic UTIs, for 3 (#...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0940
(Tag F0940)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to include fall prevention and fall safety training on the Facility Assessment, as an assessed need, based on the resident population; and, fa...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • 30% turnover. Below Montana's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s), 1 harm violation(s), $86,764 in fines, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 18 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $86,764 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Montana. Major compliance failures.
- • Grade F (38/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is St Luke Community's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns ST LUKE COMMUNITY NURSING HOME an overall rating of 3 out of 5 stars, which is considered average nationally. Within Montana, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This mid-range rating indicates the facility meets federal standards but may have areas for improvement.
How is St Luke Community Staffed?
CMS rates ST LUKE COMMUNITY NURSING HOME's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 30%, compared to the Montana average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at St Luke Community?
State health inspectors documented 18 deficiencies at ST LUKE COMMUNITY NURSING HOME during 2023 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 1 that caused actual resident harm, and 16 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.
Who Owns and Operates St Luke Community?
ST LUKE COMMUNITY NURSING HOME 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 75 certified beds and approximately 32 residents (about 43% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in RONAN, Montana.
How Does St Luke Community Compare to Other Montana Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Montana, ST LUKE COMMUNITY NURSING HOME's overall rating (3 stars) is above the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (30%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting St Luke Community?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "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 Immediate Jeopardy citations.
Is St Luke Community Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, ST LUKE COMMUNITY NURSING HOME has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 3-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Montana. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.
Do Nurses at St Luke Community Stick Around?
ST LUKE COMMUNITY NURSING HOME has a staff turnover rate of 30%, 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 St Luke Community Ever Fined?
ST LUKE COMMUNITY NURSING HOME has been fined $86,764 across 2 penalty actions. This is above the Montana average of $33,947. 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 St Luke Community on Any Federal Watch List?
ST LUKE COMMUNITY NURSING 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.