How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Meadow Manor
210 East Grand Avenue, Grand Meadow, MN 55936 (opens Google Maps) · Mower County · (507) 754-5212· 26 certified beds · avg 19 residents/day · certified since Dec 1, 1986 · Medicare and Medicaid certified
Certified for both programmes. Certification means the facility can bill Medicaid — it does not mean a Medicaid-funded bed is free right now, so ask directly. Who pays for nursing home care →
Part of chain: ACCURA HEALTHCARE (41 facilities, chain avg rating 2.5★)
4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Feb 18, 2026
1
Serious findings on record
most recent Aug 22, 2024
$0
Fines, last 3 years
3.03
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)
Every record stays on this page.
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
New to these records? How to read an inspection report →
Health inspection rating: ★★★★☆4/5 · CMS overall rating: 3/5 · how star ratings work →
The health inspection star above is graded on a curve within each state — a set share of each state's facilities gets each star level — so a facility can have few citations and still rate 2–3 stars if others in its state did even better. The overall rating combines that inspection score with staffing and quality measures from resident assessments and claims.
Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Aug 22, 2024 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Aug 22, 2024 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Why it matters: This is one of the most common citations and directly relates to falls and injuries, which can be devastating for older adults.
Severity (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.
Corrected: Sep 16, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 20 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility did not electronically submit complete and accurate staffing information to the government, based on payroll and other verifiable records. F-0851
The facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential. F-0583
The facility did not honor residents' right to voice complaints without discrimination or retaliation, or did not have a working complaint process that resolves issues promptly. F-0585
View all 20 inspection findingsShow only the latest 3 findings
CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed — that window is CMS's, not ours. Within it, every citation CMS publishes for this facility is listed here: none excluded.
| Date | Severity | What the facility was cited for |
|---|---|---|
| Feb 18, 2026 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not electronically submit complete and accurate staffing information to the government, based on payroll and other verifiable records. · F-0851 |
| Jan 23, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential. · F-0583 |
| Jan 23, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not honor residents' right to voice complaints without discrimination or retaliation, or did not have a working complaint process that resolves issues promptly. · F-0585 |
| Jan 23, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock. · F-0761 |
| Jan 23, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · F-0880 |
| Jan 23, 2025 | C · Potential for minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not make its inspection results easy for residents to see, or made it hard for residents to contact advocacy agencies like the ombudsman. · F-0577 |
| Aug 22, 2024 | ▲ G · Actual harm, isolated | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint · F-0689 |
| Aug 22, 2024 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not run an ongoing quality assurance committee that reviews care problems and creates plans to fix them. · from a complaint · F-0867 |
| Aug 22, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · from a complaint · F-0609 |
| Aug 22, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not respond appropriately to alleged violations, such as reports of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Facilities must investigate every allegation and protect residents while they do. · from a complaint · F-0610 |
| Aug 22, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required. · from a complaint · F-0657 |
| Jan 22, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · from a complaint · F-0880 |
| Nov 30, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not honor residents' right to manage their own money and financial affairs. · F-0567 |
| Nov 30, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not allow residents to take their own medications when a clinical review showed they could do so safely. Residents have this right if their care team determines it's appropriate. · F-0554 |
| Nov 30, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not give residents proper notice about what Medicare or Medicaid covers, or about charges the resident might owe for services that aren't covered. · F-0582 |
| Nov 30, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689 |
| Nov 30, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · F-0880 |
| Nov 30, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not have a working call system — the button or cord residents use to summon help — in each resident's bathroom and bathing area. · F-0919 |
| Nov 30, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. · F-0921 |
| Sep 12, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · from a complaint · F-0684 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (5 → 1).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2023
All citations: 8
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 6
Serious citations (G–L): 1
2025
All citations: 5
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 1
Serious citations (G–L): 0
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 8 | 0 | E |
| 2024 | 6 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2025 | 5 | 0 | D |
| 2026 | 1 | 0 | F |
Counts reflect the current CMS public record (~3 inspection cycles plus complaint investigations); years with no surveys show no row. Inspection frequency varies, so compare severity as well as counts.
Fines and enforcement (last 3 years)
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
What these staffing numbers mean →
This facilityMinnesota averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 3.03
Minnesota average: 4.83
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.68
Minnesota average: 1.22
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 2.34
Minnesota average: 4.27
U.S. average: 3.50
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Measure | This facility | Minnesota avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 3.03 | 4.83 | 3.95 | bottom 1% in Minnesota; bottom 15% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.68 | 1.22 | 0.69 | bottom 6% in Minnesota; top 39% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 2.34 | 4.27 | 3.50 | bottom 1% in Minnesota; bottom 6% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.33 | 0.69 | 0.48 | bottom 9% in Minnesota; bottom 38% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | — | 42.2 | 45.8 | — |
| RN turnover (%) | — | 38.6 | 42.9 | — |
Hours are per resident per day for the most recent quarter of payroll data in this CMS release (2026-08-01) — the same quarter for every facility — case-mix adjusted by CMS so facilities caring for sicker residents can be compared fairly (same basis as the CMS staffing star). "Top X%" means better than most facilities: more staffing hours, or lower turnover. Raw (unadjusted) reported hours: total 2.94, RN 0.66, weekend 2.27.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (2.94 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 1/5.
Quality measures: assessments & claims
Note: CMS combines facility-reported resident assessments (MDS) with claims-based measures. These are different sources from on-site inspection findings. Read the measures alongside inspection and staffing records; a high QM rating does not establish that a home is safe.
Quality measures rating: 3/5 · long-stay residents: 3/5 · short-stay residents: —/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Meadow Manor. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.
Calculate a stay from a quote you receive
Use a written private-pay quote. This worksheet adds only the amounts you enter; it does not calculate Medicare, Medicaid or insurance benefits.
Formula: (room rate + daily extras) × days + one-time charges. A 30-day scenario is not a calendar-month quote. Refundable deposits, rate changes and charges you omit are not automatically included. Entries are not saved or sent to our server.
Before you compare prices
- Request the room type, effective date and itemized daily rate in writing.
- Ask about therapy, medicines, supplies, care-level charges, deposits, refunds and annual increases.
- Confirm insurance or Medicaid eligibility and bed availability directly; certification alone does not guarantee either.
Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price
Who owns this facility
How to read ownership records →
Ownership records as published by CMS on 2026-08-01. CMS records when an owner joined but not when they left. Listed here and no longer involved? Tell us →
For profit - Corporation
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Groff, Howard | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 50% | 08/30/1995 |
| Sheridan, Gail | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 50% | 08/30/1995 |
| Tealwood Enterprise INC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 05/31/2013 |
| American Healthcare Management Services LLC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2019 |
| Leneave, Ted | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2019 |
| Leneave, Ted | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2019 |
| Maloney, Trent | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2023 |
| Medina-Bielski, Sara | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/01/2024 |
All 8 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
Other facilities in the same chain
CMS lists this facility under the chain Accura Healthcare — 41 facilities in the current records. Chain membership says who operates these homes. It says nothing about how any individual one of them was inspected; each has its own record.
- Prairie View Senior Living — Tracy, MN · overall 3/5
- Sterling Park Health Care Center — Waite Park, MN · overall 2/5
- Woodlyn Heights Healthcare Center — Inver Grove Heights, MN · overall 2/5
- Accura Healthcare of Franklin — Franklin, NE · overall 2/5
- Accura Healthcare of Fullerton — Fullerton, NE · overall 3/5
- Accura Healthcare of Hartington — Hartington, NE · overall 5/5
- Accura Healthcare of North Platte — North Platte, NE · overall 4/5
- Accura Healthcare of O'Neill — O' Neill, NE · overall 1/5
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 40 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
- "How do your actual daily staffing levels compare to what's reported on Medicare's Care Compare website?"
- "How do you protect residents' privacy, both in their medical records and in day-to-day care?"
- "Walk me through what happens when a resident or family files a grievance — who responds and how fast?"
- "Can you show me how medications are stored and secured on the units, including controlled drugs?"
- "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
- "Where do you post your latest state inspection results and the ombudsman's contact information?"
- "How does your quality committee work, and can you give an example of a problem it recently identified and fixed?"
Also worth asking anywhere
- "Your weekend nurse staffing is reported below the Minnesota midpoint — how does the weekend schedule differ from a weekday?"
- "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
- "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"
Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Spring Valley Care Center | 8.9 mi | Spring Valley, MN | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Ostrander Care and Rehab | 9.5 mi | Ostrander, MN | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Stewartville Care Center | 11.3 mi | Stewartville, MN | ★☆☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Field Crest Care Center | 18.8 mi | Hayfield, MN | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Good Samaritan Society - Comforcare | 19.1 mi | Austin, MN | ★★★★★ | 4/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in Mower, MN — 4 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Sacred Heart Care Center — Austin, MN · overall 2/5
- St Marks Living — Austin, MN · overall 1/5
Listed by facility name — not a ranking. Homes already in the table above are not repeated here.
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 245367.