Below average — CMS composite of the measures below.
A standard survey is most likely before around August 2026
Estimate from public CMS data, current as of July 2026. Survey timing is at the state agency's discretion.
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Benefis Senior Services - Westview during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident was subjected to mental abuse when staff restricted her right to private in-room visitations, requiring all visits with certain individuals to occur only in common areas for staff convenience. This restriction was imposed without documented safety concerns, contradicted the resident's care plan preferences for socialization, and led to the resident experiencing ongoing feelings of isolation, frustration, and being watched.
A resident with a history of skin breakdown developed a worsening Stage III pressure ulcer due to inconsistent wound assessment, measurement, and dressing changes, with staff failing to follow physician orders and facility policy for documentation. Another resident with an indwelling catheter developed a wound on the foreskin after staff failed to provide consistent and proper perineal care, and the wound went undocumented and unrecognized by staff until observed during the survey.
Two residents did not have comprehensive, person-centered care plans in place to address their specific needs. One resident's care plan lacked critical details for dialysis management, such as monitoring protocols and emergency contacts. Another resident with cognitive impairment and a history of elopement did not have interventions or risk identification documented in the care plan, despite repeated incidents and discussions about moving to a secure unit.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment repeatedly accessed unmonitored elevators and was found on other floors or searching for exits, yet was not assessed as at risk for elopement and did not have interventions reflected in the care plan. Staff were unclear on elopement definitions, did not use the wander guard system, and failed to move the resident to a secure unit despite available beds, resulting in ongoing elopement hazards.
Insufficient nursing staff resulted in delayed wound care, inconsistent completion of ADLs, and prolonged call light response times. A resident's pressure ulcer worsened due to missed dressing changes and lack of wound monitoring, while other residents experienced delays in hygiene care and repositioning. Staff and residents reported frequent low staffing, with only one nurse and two CNAs at times for 34 rooms, directly impacting the quality and timeliness of care.
A resident was not allowed to have visitors in her room and was only permitted to meet with friends in the common area, as directed by staff. Staff interviews revealed inconsistent understanding of visitation rules, and the facility only had a hospital-wide policy, not one specific to LTC. Staff confirmed there was no developed or communicated visitation policy for long-term care services, affecting all residents and their visitors.
Two residents experienced a lack of privacy: one was not permitted to have private visits in her room and was required to meet visitors in a non-private common area, while another did not have a door or curtain on her bathroom, leaving her feeling exposed. Staff were either unaware of or responsible for these privacy lapses, which were contrary to the facility's stated policies on resident rights.
A resident was found with a wheelchair seat belt restraint that they could not remove independently, without a current physician order, documented medical justification, or inclusion in the care plan. Staff indicated the restraint was used for fall prevention, but facility policy requiring assessment, documentation, and care planning for restraints was not followed.
A nurse pre-poured and scanned medications for several residents, documenting them as administered in the MAR before actually giving them. Medications were then administered at later times than recorded, resulting in inaccurate documentation for at least three residents. The nurse admitted this practice occurred, especially when short-staffed or running behind, and acknowledged it was improper.
Two residents did not consistently receive assistance with basic ADLs, such as hair and oral care, and were sometimes left in their rooms without encouragement to participate in meals or social activities. Staff interviews and observations indicated a reliance on family members to provide these cares, rather than ensuring staff completed them.
Several residents with limited mobility were not regularly repositioned by staff, resulting in prolonged periods in the same position without the use of positioning aids. Residents reported discomfort, soreness, and concerns about skin breakdown, while staff interviews indicated that the restorative aide was overextended and CNAs were not consistently providing necessary turning and mobility assistance.
A resident receiving hemodialysis did not have a physician order for dialysis documented upon admission, with the order only created months later. The resident also reported not receiving adequate protein with a meal and expressed dissatisfaction with the available options. Staff confirmed the resident should have received double protein servings and that alternatives were available, but these were not provided.
Surveyors identified that staff failed to properly administer and document medications for three residents, including not verifying or recording vital signs before giving digoxin, not providing a prescribed topical cream as documented, and not administering an inhaler despite documentation stating otherwise. These actions resulted in a medication error rate of nine percent.
A resident with significant hand deformities and discomfort from a previous bone break experienced a three-month delay in receiving an orthopedic consult due to the facility's failure to follow up on a referral. Although the referral was ordered, it was not completed because the orthopedic provider contacted the resident's personal cell phone instead of the unit, and nursing staff did not ensure the follow-up was finalized.
The facility failed to serve food at safe and appetizing temperatures, affecting several residents. Observations revealed that food was often cold, and staff relied on microwaving without proper temperature checks, contrary to facility policy. Residents reported dissatisfaction with meal temperatures, and staff admitted to reheating food primarily due to surveyor presence.
The facility failed to honor resident preferences for shower frequency, with three residents reporting dissatisfaction with the current schedule. They expressed a desire for more frequent showers, but the facility's documentation did not reflect any refusals or unavailability. Staff interviews indicated that showers were often postponed due to other tasks, but these instances were not documented, and the facility lacked a specific policy addressing shower frequency and preferences.
The facility failed to provide scheduled bathing assistance to three residents, resulting in extended periods without showers. Despite being scheduled for regular showers, these residents experienced significant gaps between bathing sessions, with no documentation of refusals or unavailability. Interviews confirmed infrequent showers, indicating a failure to adhere to the facility's policy on personal hygiene assistance.
A resident with significant health issues, including skin concerns and mobility limitations, did not have a comprehensive care plan addressing all their needs. The care plan lacked documentation for essential ADLs and did not reflect the resident's nutritional needs for healing. Staff interviews highlighted challenges in completing scheduled care tasks, such as showers, due to workload and resident availability.
Resident Subjected to Mental Abuse Through Restriction of Visitation Rights
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a resident was free from mental abuse by depriving her of her rights to private visitations and by isolating her from social interactions for staff convenience. The resident was not allowed to have visitors in her room and was repeatedly told by staff to move her visits to the common area. This restriction was imposed despite the resident expressing that socialization was very important to her and that the limitation caused her to feel dull, bored, frustrated, and like a prisoner. The restriction had been in place for several months, and the resident agreed to it only to keep peace with the staff, not because she felt it was appropriate. Multiple staff interviews confirmed that the directive to limit the resident's in-room visitors originated from a specific staff member, who cited concerns about the resident discussing facility issues with others and encouraging complaints. There were no documented safety concerns or incidents that justified the restriction, and staff acknowledged that the resident's visitors, including a long-time friend and another resident's family member, were not involved in any inappropriate behavior. The facility did not provide the resident with written documentation or rationale for the visitation limitation, and the decision was not based on any documented behavioral or safety issues. The resident's care plan indicated a preference for socialization and maintaining her current level of social interaction, with a goal of avoiding complaints of isolation. However, the imposed visitation restrictions directly contradicted these care plan goals and the facility's own policies, which guarantee residents the right to private visits and to voice concerns without fear of punishment. The actions taken by staff resulted in the resident experiencing ongoing negative psychosocial effects, as evidenced by her own statements and corroborated by interviews with friends and staff.
Failure to Consistently Assess, Document, and Provide Wound and Perineal Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to consistently assess, measure, and monitor a resident's pressure ulcer, and did not ensure wound dressings were provided as ordered by the physician. One resident with a history of Addison's disease and susceptibility to skin breakdown developed a Stage III pressure ulcer on the back of her right upper thigh after readmission from the hospital. The resident reported that staff did not listen to her instructions on wound dressing application, resulting in dressings that frequently rolled up and came off. She also stated that dressing changes were not performed consistently, and wound care was not always provided as scheduled. Observations confirmed the presence of a worsening wound, and record reviews showed a lack of consistent wound assessment, measurement, and documentation between physician visits, despite facility policy requiring regular monitoring and documentation. Staff interviews revealed that wound care and assessments were primarily performed by a wound care nurse who visited weekly, but measurements were not always taken at each dressing change, and sometimes the nurse did not return to complete wound care if the resident was unavailable. Other nursing staff were expected to perform dressing changes as ordered, but documentation was inconsistent or missing for multiple dates. The resident's wound progressed from improving to worsening over a period of several weeks, as documented by the Wound Clinic physician, with a significant increase in wound size. Facility records and task histories confirmed that dressing changes and wound assessments were not completed or documented as required by physician orders and facility policy. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure proper perineal care for another resident with an indwelling catheter, resulting in the development of a wound on the foreskin. The resident reported inconsistent perineal care and that staff often failed to properly clean the area, especially under the foreskin. Staff were unaware of the wound until it was observed during the survey, and there was no prior documentation or notification regarding the wound. The lack of proper perineal care and failure to identify and document the wound contributed to the resident's condition.
Failure to Develop and Implement Comprehensive, Person-Centered Care Plans
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop and implement comprehensive, person-centered care plans for two residents, resulting in unmet care needs. For one resident with multiple diagnoses including congestive heart failure, diabetes, and pulmonary fibrosis, the care plan did not include essential details related to dialysis care. Missing elements included the dialysis center's contact information, specifics on monitoring pre- and post-dialysis vitals, transportation arrangements, the type and location of dialysis, which arm to use for blood pressure, emergency contacts for dialysis-related issues, and monitoring for complications such as infection or hypotension at the access site. Another resident with cognitive impairment, ataxia, and a history of traumatic brain injury experienced repeated elopement incidents. The care plan did not identify the resident's elopement risk or outline interventions to prevent further incidents, nor did it include person-centered activities or diversions tailored to the resident's interests or dementia progression. Despite multiple documented elopements and discussions about transferring the resident to a secure unit, the care plan was not updated to reflect these risks or interventions.
Failure to Identify and Address Elopement Risk for Cognitively Impaired Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to timely identify and address elopement risks for a resident with severe cognitive impairment. The resident, who had a BIMS score of 7 indicating severe cognitive deficits, was not assessed as being at risk for elopement in the most current available assessment, and no updated elopement assessment was provided during the survey. Despite repeated incidents where the resident accessed elevators and was found on other floors or searching for exits, the care plan did not reflect the resident's wandering or elopement risk, nor did it provide staff with guidance on managing these behaviors. Multiple nursing notes documented the resident's repeated attempts to use the elevator and leave the unit, including instances where the resident was found on different floors and continued to seek exits for extended periods. Staff attempted to redirect the resident without success, and discussions occurred about moving the resident to a secure unit. However, there was no documented follow-up or implementation of this intervention, even though secure unit beds were available in the facility. Staff interviews revealed a lack of awareness and understanding regarding the classification of elopement events, with some staff considering the incidents as AWOL rather than elopement, despite the resident's cognitive impairment. Additionally, the facility's wander guard system was not utilized for this resident, and staff were unsure how it functioned on the unit. The facility had unmonitored elevators and exits, further contributing to the ongoing elopement hazard for the resident.
Insufficient Staffing Leads to Delayed Care and Unmet Resident Needs
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide sufficient nursing staff to meet the needs of residents, resulting in several care deficiencies. One resident with a pressure ulcer on her right upper leg reported that her dressing was not changed consistently, particularly during the day when staff stated they did not have time. Medical record review confirmed that the wound was not assessed, measured, or monitored for nearly a month, and a Wound Clinic note documented that the pressure injury worsened during this period. Staff interviews corroborated that dressing changes were not completed as ordered and that wound care documentation was lacking. Other residents experienced unmet needs related to activities of daily living (ADLs) and long call light response times. One resident was often left in her room in the dark during breakfast, missing opportunities for socialization and encouragement to eat. Another resident reported waiting an hour and a half to be changed and stated that basic hygiene tasks such as face washing and hair brushing were inconsistently performed. Observations confirmed that at times, no CNAs were present on the floor, and staff reported that the unit was frequently staffed with only one nurse and two CNAs for 34 rooms, with some residents requiring two-person assistance for transfers. Multiple residents and staff expressed concerns about low staffing levels, with reports of call lights going unanswered for extended periods and residents feeling reluctant to request assistance. Staff described being floated to other buildings and feeling short-staffed more than half the time. The call light system was also reported to be down, preventing the facility from providing call light response data. These staffing shortages directly contributed to delays in care, incomplete ADLs, and inadequate repositioning for residents at risk of skin breakdown.
Failure to Develop and Communicate LTC-Specific Visitation Policy
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop, implement, and inform residents of a specific visitation policy and procedure for long-term care services. One resident reported being restricted from having visitors in her room and was only allowed to meet with friends in the common area, as directed by staff. The resident stated she complied with this arrangement to avoid conflict with staff. Multiple staff interviews revealed inconsistent understanding and application of visitation policies, with some staff indicating that overnight visits required prior approval and others referencing a general hospital policy rather than one tailored to long-term care. Upon request, the facility provided a visitation policy that was specific to the hospital system and not applicable to the long-term care setting. Staff confirmed that there was no developed policy or procedure for visitation related to Senior Services or long-term care. This lack of a specific and communicated visitation policy had the potential to affect all residents and their visitors, as it resulted in inconsistent practices and lack of clarity regarding residents' visitation rights.
Failure to Ensure Resident Privacy During Visits and Bathroom Use
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure resident privacy in two separate instances. One resident was not allowed to have visitors in her room and was instructed by staff to meet with visitors only in the common area, which did not provide privacy for conversations. Multiple staff interviews confirmed that this restriction was imposed by a staff member, and the facility's own policy and resident rights documentation state that residents are entitled to private visits and to have visitors at any time. In another case, a resident's bathroom lacked a door or privacy curtain, leaving the bathroom open to the main living space. The resident expressed discomfort and a sense of exposure, particularly when showering. Staff were unaware of the resident's concerns, despite facility policy stating that residents are entitled to proper privacy, property, and living arrangements.
Failure to Document and Justify Use of Physical Restraint
Penalty
Summary
A resident was observed sitting in a wheelchair near the nurse's station with a loose-fitting seat belt that the resident was unable to remove independently when prompted. The resident's records showed that the last assessment for the use of restraints or alarms was completed nearly three years prior, and this evaluation did not specify any medical condition or symptom being treated by the use of the seat belt. There was no documentation in the resident's electronic health record of ongoing re-evaluation for the need for a physical restraint, and the most recent care plan did not mention the use of a seat belt. During staff interview, it was stated that the seat belt was used to prevent falls and that care plans are typically updated after such events, but the staff member was unaware that the seat belt was not included in the current care plan. Additionally, there was no physician order for the use of the wheelchair seat belt, as required by the facility's own policy. The policy mandates a physician's order with documented rationale, appropriate nursing assessment, and care plan initiation for any restraint, as well as quarterly reassessment for restraint reduction, none of which were present in this case.
Inaccurate Medication Administration Times Documented in MARs
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that pre-poured medications were administered in a timely manner and that medication administration records (MARs) accurately reflected the actual times medications were given. During observation and interviews, a staff member was found to have pre-poured medications for multiple residents and stored them in a locked medication cart drawer. The staff member scanned the medications into the MAR as if they had been administered at that time, even though the medications were not actually given until later. The staff member admitted to sometimes changing the administration time in the MAR to match the actual time, but on the day of observation, did not do so due to being late and running behind. The staff member also indicated that this practice occurred more frequently when the facility was short-staffed and acknowledged that this method was incorrect. Specific instances were observed where residents received their medications at times that did not match the times documented in their MARs. For example, one resident received medications at 8:14 a.m., but the MAR showed administration at 7:32 a.m.; another received medications at 8:19 a.m., with the MAR indicating 7:38 a.m.; and a third resident received medications at 8:28 a.m., while the MAR documented 8:03 a.m. These discrepancies resulted in inaccurate documentation of medication administration times for at least three residents. Staff interviews confirmed that this practice was unacceptable and did not meet professional standards of quality.
Failure to Provide Consistent ADL Support and Reliance on Family for Care
Penalty
Summary
Staff failed to ensure that two residents received assistance with basic activities of daily living (ADLs), such as hair and oral care, as well as support to get out of bed and participate in meals and social activities. One resident, who had a history of stroke and was unable to brush the right side of her hair, reported that her face was only sometimes washed in the morning and her hair was only partially brushed. Observations confirmed that her hair and teeth were not consistently cared for, and a staff member noted that they often provided these cares only when a family member was present, raising concerns about what would happen if the family member did not visit daily. Another resident was frequently left in her room in the dark during breakfast, not encouraged to get out of bed, eat, or socialize with others. Observations showed that her hair remained in frizzy braids that appeared to have been slept in throughout the morning. Staff interviews revealed a pattern of relying on family members to complete basic ADLs, rather than ensuring staff provided these essential cares.
Failure to Reposition Residents to Prevent Skin Breakdown
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that residents with limited mobility were regularly repositioned to prevent skin breakdown. Multiple residents reported that staff only repositioned them upon request, and observations confirmed that residents remained in the same position for extended periods without the use of positioning aids such as pillows or wedges. One resident noted that staff applied cream to her buttock area, which was observed to be slightly pink and blanchable, but she was not informed about the condition of her skin. Another resident reported soreness from prolonged sitting and was not observed to be repositioned during the survey period. Documentation showed that one resident was not turned at all on several days. Staff interviews revealed that the restorative aide responsible for mobility and repositioning services was covering approximately 70 residents across three buildings, and that CNAs could assist with turning and repositioning, but nurses were described as too busy to help. Residents expressed concerns about inadequate cleaning and the risk of skin breakdown, with some reporting recurrent UTIs and discomfort from prolonged immobility. The electronic health records did not consistently reflect the residents' actual skin conditions or repositioning needs.
Failure to Ensure Physician Orders and Appropriate Nutrition for Dialysis Patient
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide safe and appropriate dialysis care and services for a resident requiring hemodialysis. The resident, who regularly attended dialysis at an off-site center, did not have a physician order for dialysis treatment documented upon admission, with the order only being created several months later. Additionally, the resident reported not receiving adequate protein with a supper meal, expressing dissatisfaction with the lack of meat options and stating he was tired of chicken. Staff confirmed that the resident should have been receiving double servings of protein and that alternative options were available if the resident did not want chicken. Observations confirmed the resident was not present to eat the meal provided, which included green beans, a bun, chicken noodle soup, and pumpkin pie, and did not include a protein alternative as per the resident's dietary needs and preferences.
Medication Administration Errors and Documentation Failures
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that prescribed medications were administered as ordered for three residents, resulting in a medication error rate of nine percent. For one resident prescribed digoxin, staff administered the medication after stating they had taken the resident's pulse earlier in the morning, but there was no documentation of any vital signs, including pulse, on the day of administration. The physician's order for digoxin specified to hold the medication if the pulse was less than 50, but this parameter was not verified or documented at the time of administration. Additionally, another resident did not receive their prescribed Lotrimin cream as documented on the Medication Administration Record (MAR), despite the staff member stating they would return to administer non-pill medications after distributing oral medications. The resident, who was cognitively intact, reported not receiving the cream and indicated this was a recurring issue. A third resident, also cognitively intact, reported not receiving their inhaler, although the MAR indicated it had been given. These failures were observed and confirmed through interviews, record reviews, and direct resident statements.
Delay in Orthopedic Referral Follow-Up for Resident with Hand Deformities
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency occurred when the facility failed to ensure timely follow-up on a referral for an orthopedic consult for a resident with significant deformities and discomfort in her right hand, specifically the index and ring fingers, resulting from an old bone break. The resident had requested to see an orthopedic doctor, and a referral to a hand surgeon was documented in the physician's progress notes. However, a review of the electronic medical record did not show any result or evidence of the referral being completed. Staff confirmed that although the order was sent, the orthopedic provider had contacted the resident's personal cell phone instead of the unit's line, and nursing did not complete the necessary follow-up, resulting in a delay of three months before the resident was set up to be seen.
Failure to Serve Food at Safe Temperatures
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide residents with food at a safe and appetizing temperature, affecting four of the sixteen sampled residents. Multiple residents reported that their meals were consistently served cold, and observations confirmed that food items were not at the appropriate temperature when served. For instance, a resident received a peanut butter and jelly sandwich with wet and soggy bread, and another resident's sausage was served at 84.8 degrees Fahrenheit before reheating. Staff members were observed microwaving food without checking temperatures before or after reheating, relying on visual cues like steam to determine if the food was adequately heated. The facility's policy required that food temperatures be checked upon arrival from the main kitchen and reheated in an oven if below 140 degrees Fahrenheit. However, staff members did not adhere to this policy, as they did not consistently check temperatures or use the oven for reheating. Instead, they used microwaves, which was not in line with the facility's procedures. Staff members admitted to reheating food in the microwave primarily because surveyors were present, indicating a lack of consistent practice in maintaining food safety standards. The facility's failure to follow its policy and ensure food was served at safe temperatures led to the deficiency.
Failure to Honor Resident Preferences for Shower Frequency
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to honor and facilitate resident self-determination by not providing residents with choices regarding the timing and frequency of showers. Three residents expressed dissatisfaction with the current shower schedule, which was not aligned with their preferences. Resident #104 reported being allowed only one shower per week, with significant gaps between showers, and expressed a desire for more frequent showers. Resident #114 also stated she received only one shower a week and wished for more, while resident #126 indicated she was scheduled for one shower a week but often went longer periods without assistance, despite needing help. The facility's documentation did not reflect any refusals or unavailability of the residents for showers, suggesting a lack of proper record-keeping. Staff interviews revealed that showers were often postponed due to other tasks or resident unavailability, but these instances were not documented. Additionally, the facility lacked a specific policy addressing shower frequency and resident preferences, contributing to the inconsistency in meeting residents' needs and preferences for personal hygiene.
Failure to Provide Scheduled Bathing Assistance
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide adequate assistance with bathing for three residents, resulting in extended periods without showers. Resident #119 was scheduled for showers twice a week, but records showed gaps of 11 and 13 days between showers. Similarly, resident #121, who was scheduled for weekly showers, experienced gaps of 10, 11, and 12 days. Resident #127, also scheduled for weekly showers, had gaps of 14, 8, and 10 days between showers. Interviews with residents #121 and #127 confirmed infrequent showers, and there was no documentation indicating that any of the residents refused or were unavailable for their scheduled showers. The facility's policy on activities of daily living (ADLs) requires that assistance with personal hygiene and bathing be provided as directed in the care plan and documented in the medical record. However, the facility did not adhere to this policy, as evidenced by the lack of documentation for refusals or unavailability and the extended periods between showers for the affected residents. This deficiency was identified through interviews and record reviews, highlighting a failure to meet the residents' needs for personal hygiene assistance.
Inadequate Care Plan for Resident with Multiple Health Concerns
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive care plan for a resident with multiple health concerns, including skin issues, nutrition, activities of daily living (ADLs), mobility, and urinary concerns. The resident was admitted with diagnoses such as rectal ulceration, a second-degree burn on the abdomen, incomplete paraplegia, and a suprapubic catheter. Despite these significant health issues, the care plan initiated for the resident only addressed dental care and nutrition, lacking documentation for assistance with ADLs like bathing, dressing, transferring, mobility, catheter care, or wound care. Observations and interviews revealed that the resident relied on a wheelchair for mobility and required staff assistance for transfers and hygiene. Staff interviews indicated challenges in completing scheduled showers due to workload and resident availability, with no documentation of refusals or missed showers. Additionally, although the resident had skin concerns and required extra nutrition for healing, this was not reflected in the care plan. The facility's policy required a comprehensive interdisciplinary care plan within 21 days of admission, but this was not adequately developed for the resident in question.
What surveyors are citing around you — mapped
All 10 risk areas, ranked with evidence
Repeat citations, what's rising near you, and quality measures — ranked so department heads know exactly where to look first.
Illustrative
What surveyors actually found near you
We read the 19 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — and tell you exactly what happened, in plain English, matched to your record.
Resident with a documented fall history left unattended on the patio; found on the ground with a hip fracture.
Walk-in cooler logs missing for 12 days; expired supplements in the medication room fridge.
Illustrative
A prioritized, do-first checklist
Every risk area becomes concrete audit steps drawn from real citations at facilities like yours — run them this week, before your window opens.
Illustrative
Risk indicators are statistical estimates from public CMS data — not predictions, findings, or compliance advice.
Nursing homes near Great Falls
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Benefis Senior Services - Eastview | 1.9 mi | ★★★★★ | 6 | 0 |
| Benefis Senior Services - Grandview | 1.9 mi | ★★★★★ | 1 | 0 |
| Park Place Transitional Care And Rehabilitation | 2.3 mi | ★★★★★ | 12 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Benefis Senior Services - Westview.
100% money-back within 48 hours.
Trusted data, never guesswork. Every citation, penalty, rating and Plan of Correction on this page is sourced from public CMS records (latest release July 2026) and official state health department websites.