How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Meadowood a Health and Rehabilitation Center
3110 Wagner Heights Road, Stockton, CA 95209 (opens Google Maps) · San Joaquin County · (209) 956-3444· 100 certified beds · avg 63 residents/day · certified since Oct 10, 1997 · 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 →
4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Feb 28, 2025
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
5.27
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: 5/5 · 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.
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 38 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint F-0600
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. · from a complaint F-0919
The facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. F-0812
View all 38 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 |
|---|---|---|
| May 21, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint · F-0600 |
| Aug 14, 2025 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0919 |
| Feb 28, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · F-0812 |
| Feb 28, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Feb 28, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not treat residents with dignity and respect, or did not honor their rights to make their own decisions and communicate freely. This is one of the most fundamental resident rights. · F-0550 |
| Feb 28, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not honor residents' rights to request, refuse, or stop treatment, to decline participation in medical research, or to make an advance directive — a written statement of their wishes for future medical care. · F-0578 |
| Feb 28, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential. · F-0583 |
| Feb 28, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility used physical restraints — devices that limit a resident's movement — when they weren't needed for medical treatment. · F-0604 |
| Feb 28, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines. · F-0656 |
| Feb 28, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide appropriate care related to bladder and bowel needs — including care for residents who use catheters and steps to prevent urinary tract infections. · F-0690 |
| Feb 28, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide safe and appropriate respiratory care — such as oxygen, breathing treatments, or care for residents on breathing equipment — for residents who needed it. · F-0695 |
| Feb 28, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility's medication error rate was 5 percent or higher — meaning too many doses were given incorrectly, such as the wrong drug, dose, or time. · F-0759 |
| Feb 28, 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 |
| Oct 11, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · from a complaint · F-0755 |
| Oct 11, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not give residents (and their representatives and the ombudsman, a state advocate for residents) proper advance notice before a transfer or discharge, including information about their right to appeal. · from a complaint · F-0623 |
| Aug 7, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines. · from a complaint · F-0656 |
| Aug 7, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide or arrange dental services for its residents. Nursing homes are responsible for making sure residents can get dental care. · from a complaint · F-0791 |
| Apr 23, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · from a complaint · F-0755 |
| Apr 23, 2024 | 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 |
| Feb 9, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not honor residents' rights to request, refuse, or stop treatment, to decline participation in medical research, or to make an advance directive — a written statement of their wishes for future medical care. · F-0578 |
| Feb 9, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not treat residents with dignity and respect, or did not honor their rights to make their own decisions and communicate freely. This is one of the most fundamental resident rights. · F-0550 |
| Feb 9, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584 |
| Feb 9, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide safe and appropriate respiratory care — such as oxygen, breathing treatments, or care for residents on breathing equipment — for residents who needed it. · F-0695 |
| Feb 9, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility's medication error rate was 5 percent or higher — meaning too many doses were given incorrectly, such as the wrong drug, dose, or time. · F-0759 |
| Feb 9, 2024 | 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 |
| Feb 9, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide routine dental care and 24-hour emergency dental care for residents. · F-0790 |
| Feb 9, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · F-0812 |
| Feb 9, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · F-0842 |
| Jul 15, 2022 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · F-0812 |
| Jul 15, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide safe and appropriate respiratory care — such as oxygen, breathing treatments, or care for residents on breathing equipment — for residents who needed it. · F-0695 |
| Jul 15, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. · F-0804 |
| Jul 15, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Jul 15, 2022 | 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. · F-0609 |
| Jul 15, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines. · F-0656 |
| Jul 15, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · F-0658 |
| Jul 15, 2022 | 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 |
| Jul 15, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · F-0755 |
| Jul 15, 2022 | 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 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (9 → 11).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2022
All citations: 10
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 15
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 12
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 10 | 0 | F |
| 2024 | 15 | 0 | E |
| 2025 | 12 | 0 | E |
| 2026 | 1 | 0 | D |
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 facilityCalifornia averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 5.27
California average: 4.31
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.96
California average: 0.61
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 4.74
California average: 3.90
U.S. average: 3.50
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Measure | This facility | California avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 5.27 | 4.31 | 3.95 | top 11% in California; top 10% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.96 | 0.61 | 0.69 | top 12% in California; top 17% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 4.74 | 3.90 | 3.50 | top 9% in California; top 9% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.59 | 0.51 | 0.48 | top 23% in California; top 24% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 28.7 | 36.7 | 45.8 | top 26% in California; top 12% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 41.2 | 38.1 | 42.9 | bottom 42% in California; top 49% in the U.S. |
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 5.20, RN 0.95, weekend 4.68.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (5.20 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 5/5.
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: 4/5 · short-stay residents: 3/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Meadowood a Health and Rehabilitation Center. 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 →
Non profit - Corporation
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| O'Connor Woods Housing Corporation | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 02/02/1988 |
| Amx Holdings, LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/25/2021 |
| Chan, Alexander | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/16/2016 |
| Chan, Alexander | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/16/2016 |
| Croce, Rudolph | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2019 |
| Croce, Rudolph | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2019 |
| Croce, Rudolph | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2019 |
| Cromwell, Kristin | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2018 |
| Cromwell, Kristin | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2018 |
| Donovan, Elizabeth | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2025 |
| Donovan, Elizabeth | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2025 |
| Eskaton Properties Incorporated | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/01/2014 |
| Eskaton Properties Incorporated | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/11/2025 |
| Mallette, Penny | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2025 |
| Mallette, Penny | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/01/2019 |
| Mallette, Penny | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/01/2019 |
| Meyer, Louis | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2025 |
| Meyer, Louis | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2025 |
| Moss Adams LLP | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2011 |
| O'Connor Woods Housing Corporation | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/10/2025 |
Showing 20 of 33 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 13 are not displayed. The full list is in the CMS Ownership dataset.
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "Tell me about this abuse or neglect citation — what happened, and what specific changes did you make afterward?"
- "Can you show me the call buttons in the bathrooms and bathing areas, and tell me your average response time when one is pressed?"
- "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
- "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
- "Can you give me examples of how your staff protect residents' dignity in everyday care, like bathing and dressing?"
- "How do you record and honor each resident's treatment wishes and advance directives, and how do staff know about them?"
- "How do you protect residents' privacy, both in their medical records and in day-to-day care?"
- "What is your policy on physical restraints, and what alternatives do you try first?"
Also worth asking anywhere
- "What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
- "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
- "CMS reports 29% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "The ownership record on file lists 33 owning or managing parties — who makes the decisions about staffing levels?"
- "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"
Nearby facilities (12 closest of 22 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crystal Creek Post-Acute | 0.6 mi | Stockton, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Creekside Center | 1.6 mi | Stockton, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Delta Oaks Post Acute | 2.5 mi | Stockton, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Crestwood Manor - 104 | 3.7 mi | Stockton, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Brookside Care Center | 3.8 mi | Stockton, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Clearwater Healthcare Center | 3.9 mi | Stockton, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Oak Grove Post Acute | 4.2 mi | Stockton, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Riverwood Health Care | 4.2 mi | Stockton, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Fulton Gardens Post Acute, LLC | 5.0 mi | Stockton, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Noble Care Center | 5.4 mi | Stockton, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Hampton Post Acute | 5.5 mi | Stockton, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Good Samaritan Rehab and Care Center | 5.6 mi | Stockton, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in San Joaquin, CA — 24 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- North Park Post-Acute — Tracy, CA · overall 4/5
- Tracy Nursing and Rehabilitation Center — Tracy, CA · overall 3/5
- Vienna Nursing and Rehabilitation Center — Lodi, CA · overall 4/5
- Arbor Rehabilitation & Nursing Center — Lodi, CA · overall 4/5
- Bethany Home Society San Joaquin County — Ripon, CA · overall 4/5
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 555713.