Meadow Peak Rehabilitation

In the surveyor’s words

From the most serious findings on record at Meadow Peak Rehabilitation, in the surveyor’s own words.

• Actual harm, isolatedF689May 23, 2024

  Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the resident environment remained as free of accident hazards as was possible and each resident received adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents. Specifically, for 1 out of 25 sampled residents, a resident that was dependent on cares was left unattended in the shower, sustained a head laceration that required eight staples and six stitches, and the resident sustained a pelvic fracture. […]

• Actual harm, isolatedF689Oct 27, 2022

  Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined, the facility failed to ensure that the resident environment remained as free of accident hazards as was possible and each resident received adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents. Specifically, for 2 out of 23 sampled residents, residents did not receive preventative interventions and/or adequate supervision to prevent falls and accidents from occurring. Resident identifiers: 2 and 35. Findings included: 1. […]

• No harm, potential for more than minimal, patternF755May 11, 2026

  Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility did not provide pharmaceutical services (including procedures that assure the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administering of all drugs and biologicals) to meet the needs of each resident. Specifically, two residents' physicians orders for lidocaine lacked a dosage and did not match the administration record; and the facility staff were taping narcotic medications back into the medication cards. Resident identifiers: 49 and 84.Findings included:1. […]

• No harm, potential for more than minimal, patternF804May 11, 2026

  Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility did not ensure that each resident received and that the facility provided food and drink that was palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature. Specifically, there were numerous resident complaints about the food served at the facility, there were resident council concerns about the food served at the facility, and the test tray that surveyors sampled was not palatable.Findings included:1. On 5/6/26 at 9:43 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 2, who stated that the food served at the facility was sometimes good, sometimes marginal. 2. On 5/5/26 at 1:23 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 4, who expressed concerns about the taste of the food served at the facility.3. […]

• No harm, potential for more than minimal, patternF812Oct 27, 2022

  Based on observation and interview, it was determined, the facility did not store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Specifically, the grill in the food preparation area was dirty, the oil in the deep fryer was cloudy, food items in the walk-in freezer were open to air, food items in the walk-in refrigerator were open to air, food items in the dry storage area were open to air, and a dented can was not removed from the area where usable canned goods were stored. Findings included: On 10/24/22 at 8:28 AM, an initial walk-through was conducted in the kitchen. In the dry storage area, a can of jellied cranberry sauce was observed to be dented and with the usable cans of cranberry sauce. […]