POWDER RIVER MANOR
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Powder River Manor has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. Ranking #19 out of 59 facilities in Montana places it in the top half, but this is overshadowed by its poor overall trust score. The facility is worsening, with issues increasing from 7 in 2024 to 14 in 2025. Staffing is a strength, boasting a 5/5 rating with a turnover rate of 52%, which is slightly below the state average. However, the facility faces serious concerns, including $109,620 in fines, which is higher than 96% of other Montana facilities, and a critical finding where fall prevention measures were inadequate, resulting in multiple injuries for residents.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Montana
- #19/59
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 52% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $109,620 in fines. Lower than most Montana facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 63 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
- 25 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
-
5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Near Montana avg (46%)
Higher turnover may affect care consistency
Well above median ($33,413)
Significant penalties indicating serious issues
The Ugly 25 deficiencies on record
Sept 2025
2 deficiencies
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 F0577
(Tag F0577)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure readily available results of surveys completed by the State Survey Agency were located in a publicly accessible area. This failure wou...
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 F0578
(Tag F0578)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a completed POLST form with physician signature was readily ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2025
12 deficiencies
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
Deficiency F0726
(Tag F0726)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff were performing cares within their scope of practice; failed to ensure sufficient supervision; and failed to ensure nursing st...
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 accurately document an event sent to the State Survey Agency regarding a resident-sustained facial burn and the resident had pain, due to t...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0621
(Tag F0621)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to implement equal practices during the admission process, by failing to complete admissions on residents entering the facilit...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0655
(Tag F0655)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to complete a baseline care plan for 1 (#77) of 16 sampled residents. This deficient practice put the resident at risk for bed...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to complete timely revisions to comprehensive fall care plans for 1 (#18) of 16 sampled residents. The failure to update the f...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0658
(Tag F0658)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, facility staff failed to uphold professional standards by not following the physician orders to check the wanderguard function daily, for 1 (#20) of...
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 observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure fall interventions were followed by staff for 1 (#18); and failed to ensure staff followed needle safety techniques ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident in respiratory distress, who was coughing and unable to breathe, and afraid he was dying due to it, was p...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Unnecessary Medications
(Tag F0759)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure medication error rates were under 5% for 2 (#s 9 and 13) of 6 sampled residents for medication errors. The calculate...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0887
(Tag F0887)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide COVID-19 vaccinations for residents requesting the vaccine for 2 (#s 9 and 10) of 5 residents sampled for vaccinations. This defici...
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
Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure opened facility-wide use medications were labeled with an expiration date when stored in the medication cart; and expired products i...
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 proper hand hygiene was used for 3 (#s 5, 12, and 18); failed to ensure clean medical equipment (lifts) between reside...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2024
1 deficiency
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
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure all allegations of neglect by staff were reported to the administrator and State Survey Agency within the required timelines for 2 (...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2024
6 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
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to prevent the development and progression of a pressure wound, for 1 (#4) of 1 sampled resident with a Stage 3 sacral pressure ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0658
(Tag F0658)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to meet professional standards of practice for the prevention, treatment, and documentation of pressure wounds for 1 (#4) of 1 sampled residen...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from unnecessary medicatio...
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
3. A review of EHR documentation related to the care plans for psychotropic and anticoagulant medications for residents #10 and #18, showed:
a. Review of resident #10's medical record showed resident...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0727
(Tag F0727)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to have an RN working at least eight consecutive hours per twenty-four-hour period, seven days per week. This deficient practice had the poten...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0921)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to maintain a safe environment free from chemicals for the residents. This deficient practice had the potential to adversely affect the well-bei...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2023
4 deficiencies
1 IJ (1 affecting multiple)
CRITICAL
(K)
📢 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 multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to have a proactive beneficial system in place for the prevention of falls for all residents, to include specifically those at h...
Read full inspector narrative →
SERIOUS
(H)
📢 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
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
A resident was harmed · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to revise interventions on the resident's plan of care after multiple falls for 8 (#s 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 17, 19, and 22) of 8 sample...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0865
(Tag F0865)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to identify fall risk/hazards sufficiently, identify and investigate root causes of falls, implement, monitor, or ensure care plan interventio...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0888
(Tag F0888)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement policies and procedures to ensure the implementation of additional precautions, intended to mitigate th...
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
- • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s), 3 harm violation(s), $109,620 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 25 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $109,620 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Montana. Major compliance failures.
- • Grade F (28/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Powder River Manor's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns POWDER RIVER MANOR 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 Powder River Manor Staffed?
CMS rates POWDER RIVER MANOR's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 52%, compared to the Montana average of 46%.
What Have Inspectors Found at Powder River Manor?
State health inspectors documented 25 deficiencies at POWDER RIVER MANOR during 2023 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 3 that caused actual resident harm, and 21 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 Powder River Manor?
POWDER RIVER MANOR 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 41 certified beds and approximately 22 residents (about 54% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in BROADUS, Montana.
How Does Powder River Manor Compare to Other Montana Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Montana, POWDER RIVER MANOR's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (52%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Powder River Manor?
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 Powder River Manor Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, POWDER RIVER MANOR 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 4-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 Powder River Manor Stick Around?
POWDER RIVER MANOR has a staff turnover rate of 52%, which is 6 percentage points above the Montana average of 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 Powder River Manor Ever Fined?
POWDER RIVER MANOR has been fined $109,620 across 4 penalty actions. This is 3.2x the Montana average of $34,175. Fines at this level are uncommon and typically indicate a pattern of serious deficiencies, repeated violations, or failure to correct problems promptly. CMS reserves penalties of this magnitude for facilities that pose significant, documented risk to resident health or safety. Families should request specific documentation of what issues led to these fines and what systemic changes have been implemented.
Is Powder River Manor on Any Federal Watch List?
POWDER RIVER MANOR 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.