St Johns Assisted Living

Pros

• The facility's physical therapy staff was upbeat, caring, and prompt.
• A few of the patient care and program staff were real jewels.
• The facility provided quality care to seniors.
• Bingo, snacks, treats, rounds by staff, and special programs benefited residents.

Cons

• The facility was by far the worst care they had seen.
• There was a complete lack of care for their loved one at Libby Care Center.
• The staff had no compassion or dignity at all.
• The staff starved the father and gave him no liquids for three days.
• They killed him.
• The staff were extremely lazy and would not do their jobs; the place was full of scabs, dog hair, and food crumbs up and down the hallways.
• It hadn't been swept in at least five to six weeks.
• If families love their own, they should not let their relatives be taken here; it's all about money.
• They threw him into a room and walked out, refused to change him, and left him lying in his own feces.
• This place should be shut down.
• There is proven elder abuse; there is audio proof of irresponsibility and lack of compassion, and theft.
• The director is a self-motivated guidance counselor who listens to one side of the story and runs with it; she's a joke.

Review

The collection of experiences shared about Libby Care Center paints a troubling picture, marked by a wide spectrum of care moments that range from surprisingly positive to deeply alarming. Several accounts revolve around immediate family members who landed there during vulnerable times and felt overwhelmed by what they encountered. One reviewer described an especially harrowing sequence: a sister, age 34, was admitted after trying multiple facilities, and this place was "by far the worst care we had seen." The situation deteriorated to the point where she left, required emergency care, and was life-flighted to Kalispell for an emergency brain surgery. Months later, she remained in care somewhere else. That narrative sets a tone of grave concern about the facility's ability to provide timely and appropriate medical attention, suggesting a pattern of neglect that prompted urgent medical crises rather than steady rehabilitation or safety.

In another thread of evaluations, a clear and relentless emphasis emerges on neglect and a perceived lack of fundamental care. One reviewer insists that this is not a smear campaign, but a genuine warning: there is no meaningful rehabilitation program, no skilled staff, and the overall environment feels filthy and uncaring. Specific allegations are stark: a father was starved of liquids for three days, with staff claiming their hands were tied until a doctor returned from vacation. The reviewer asserts that these circumstances contributed to a deadly outcome, stating outright that the facility "killed him." Such claims speak to deeply felt experiences of deprivation and inaction, portraying a culture where basic needs - hydration, dignity, timely intervention - are not reliably met and where remorse and accountability do not appear to be forthcoming.

Another element that appears repeatedly is criticism of management and administration. One reviewer faulted the director, describing her as a "self-motivated guidance counselor" whose approach to concerns was biased and one-sided. The sentiment expressed is that the director would latch onto a single narrative and run with it, calling her a "joke." This line of critique suggests systemic issues around accountability and conflict resolution at the facility, implying that leadership may not be effectively safeguarding residents or balancing family concerns with clinical realities. If true, such impressions would go a long way toward explaining broader frustrations about responsiveness, transparency, and trust.

The sense of elder abuse as an ongoing concern surfaces in another strong claim, backed by references to audio documentation and allegations of theft and irresponsibility. A reviewer asserted that elder abuse had been proven and that there was "audio proof" of the staff's lack of compassion and integrity. The mention of theft and potential investigations adds a layer of legal and ethical alarm to the already troubling narrative of substandard care. Taken with other accounts, these assertions contribute to a picture of a facility where safeguarding residents' rights and safety may be compromised in ways that warrant formal scrutiny.

The most detailed family scenario centers on a grandmother who came for physical therapy after a hip surgery. The account is lengthy and specific: rehab did not begin until two or three weeks into the stay, and even then progress was inconsistent. The grandmother's shared bathroom was not accessible, forcing her to use a commode placed in the middle of her room. Help reportedly arrived only after repeated pressing from family members. Items of personal belongings were examined and a sum of money - $150 - was allegedly taken and later reclassified as "trust account" funds. The reporting describes a lack of activities and community engagement unless families pressed the issue, and mentions a policy gap: on weekends, no one manned the front desk, allowing unmonitored entry and exit. There is also a claim that a CPAP machine part was misplaced or lost, resulting in three days of insufficient oxygen support, and that explanations for the lapse were evasive. The grandmother's battle with a pneumonia diagnosis and oxygen need further underscores a fear that basic medical and caregiving duties were not being reliably met, a cascade of deficiencies that provoked calls for accountability and reform.

Amid these predominantly dire accounts, there are a few instances that acknowledge more favorable experiences, introducing a contrast into the overall narrative. One reviewer who joined Libby Care Center in fall 2020 described physical therapy as their primary focus and found the therapy staff upbeat, caring, and prompt. They noted that administration and nursing, while competent, were not as consistently aligned with the same standard of service, with the usual challenges of staffing and rules at the time, especially during Covid-19. Still, they highlighted several staff members as real jewels, suggesting that within the facility there are individuals who exemplify compassionate care and dedication. The same account referenced programs designed to broaden residents' daily living and noted that while cleanliness and food were not perfect, they were acceptable, and that the overall atmosphere included structured activities and a sense of purpose that could be meaningful for some residents.

A separate, tersely positive comment simply states, "Great place with quality care provided to our Seniors," indicating that for at least some families, the facility has delivered a level of care that meets expectations or even surpasses them. This brief compliment stands in contrast to the more comprehensive and emotionally charged evaluations, reminding readers that experiences at Libby Care Center are not monolithic and can vary widely from one resident to another and from one staff member to another. It also raises questions about what exactly constitutes quality care in different contexts and how families decide where to place loved ones when there is such a broad spectrum of reported experiences.

The most recent and emotionally forceful note centers on a life-altering incident: a patient telling a caregiver to stop when they perceived harm, followed by a claim that the aide caused a broken leg. The reviewer frames this as a preventable outcome and calls for improved care and accountability, with an emphasis on patient safety and the ethical imperative to avoid causing harm. This account underscores the urgent need for systemic safeguards - clear reporting channels, prompt corrective actions, and a culture that prioritizes patient well-being over convenience or cost-cutting. Taken together with the other posts, it reinforces a fear that some residents may be at risk of injury or neglect unless staff performance, supervision, and institutional policies are reexamined and strengthened.

In sum, the body of reviews presents a complex, emotionally charged landscape. A sizable portion details serious concerns about neglect, safety, and the moral responsibilities of caregivers and leadership. Allegations range from delays in rehabilitation and basic daily living needs to outright claims of elder abuse, theft, and mismanagement. Interwoven with these are stories of compassionate staff, effective physical therapy, and families who found pockets of satisfactory care amid broader challenges. The overall impression is one of significant risk to residents, tempered by occasional testimony to dedicated professionals within the facility. The call to action in many of these voices is clear: for the safety and dignity of residents, for transparent accountability, and for systemic improvements in staffing, supervision, and clinical practice.

Physicians

• Center For Asbestos Related Disease (0.1 miles)
• St John's Lutheran Radiology (0.1 miles)

Hospitals

• Cabinet Peaks Medical Center (0.1 miles)
• St John's Lutheran Hospital (0.1 miles)

Transportation

• Amtrak Station-LIB (0.1 miles)

Restaurants

• Mint Bar (0.2 miles)
• Cabinet Mountain Brewing Company (0.2 miles)
• The Pastime Bar (0.2 miles)
• Diane's Restaurant (0.2 miles)
• Dome Theatre & Drive In (0.3 miles)
• Antler's Restaurant (0.4 miles)
• Rosita's Mexican Restaurant (0.5 miles)

Cafes

• Camp Creek Coffee Roasters (0.2 miles)
• Aunt T's Coffee Corner (0.2 miles)
• Montana Muffins (0.2 miles)
• Hav-a-Java (0.5 miles)
• Hav-A-Java Espresso To Go (0.5 miles)
• 7 Seeds Specialty Coffee (0.5 miles)

Parks

• Park & Recreation Department (0.3 miles)

Places of Worship

• St Joseph Parish Hall (0.4 miles)
• Saint Joseph Catholic Church (0.4 miles)
• Libby United Methodist Church (0.5 miles)
• Church of God (0.5 miles)

Pharmacies

• Rosauers Supermarkets (0.7 miles)
• Rosauer's Food & Drug (0.7 miles)
• Granite Pharmacy (0.8 miles)