Meadow Ridge Senior Living.
Meadow Ridge Senior Living is Grade C, ranked in the top 49% of Minnesota memory care with 1 MDH citation on record; last inspected Jun 2025.
A large home, reviewed on public record.
Ranked against 138 Minnesota facilities.
ALF memory care · 36-month window. Higher percentile = better. Source: Minnesota Dept. of Health · Health Regulation Division.
FACILITY WATCH · BETA
Meadow Ridge Senior Living has 1 citation on record. Know the moment anything changes.
New findings, complaint investigations, or status changes — emailed to you free.
Citation history, plotted month by month.
1 deficiencie on record. Each bar is a month with a citation.
Finding distribution
1 total · 36 monthsScope × Severity (CMS A–L)
Every MDH visit, verbatim.
5 inspections in the public record, most recent first. Click any row to expand — cited rows open automatically.
2025-07-15Complaint Investigation1 · Substantiated Finding
Plain-language summary
A Minnesota Department of Health complaint investigation substantiated that an assisted living facility with dementia care neglected a resident who died after falling between a wall and his electric wheelchair in the dining room. Staff members, including a caregiver, witnessed the resident struggling for several minutes but did not physically assist him or call 911 immediately, and the facility's fall policy incorrectly directed staff not to touch residents after falls and did not address life-threatening situations. The resident, who was a known fall risk, died from positional asphyxia, and the facility was found responsible for failing to ensure nursing staff remained in the dining room during meals to monitor and assist the resident.
“MDH substantiated maltreatment or licensing violation finding”
Full inspector notes
Finding: Substantiated, facility and individual responsibility Nature of Investigation: The Minnesota Department of Health investigated an allegation of maltreatment, in accordance with the Minnesota Reporting of Maltreatment of Vulnerable Adults Act, Minn. Stat. 626.557, and to evaluate compliance with applicable licensing standards for the provider type. Initial Investigation Allegation(s): The facility neglected the resident when the resident fell after a meal service. Staff failed to physically assist the resident who was trapped between the wall and his electric wheelchair. The resident passed away from the incident. Investigative Findings and Conclusion: The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was substantiated. The facility and alleged perpetrator (AP)2 were responsible for the maltreatment. The facility was aware of the resident’s recent falls in the dining room. The facility failed to enforce nursing staff (caregivers) remain in the dining room during meals to monitor the resident and provide standby assistance. Additionally, the facility fall policy directed an erroneous order to not touch a resident after a fall and did not direct staff to aide for life-threatening situations. AP2, a caregiver unlicensed personnel (ULP), and AP1, a dietary staff member, were in the dining room at the time of the incident. AP2 and AP1 watched idly as the resident struggled to get into his electric scooter for over several minutes and fall into a suffocating position between the wall and his scooter. AP2 failed to attempt to provide any physical assistance to the resident or to try to move his electric scooter. AP2 instructed dietary staff, including AP1 not to touch him. AP1 was not responsible for the maltreatment due to not receiving prior training on falls or transfer assistance and being instructed to not touch the residents. However, several staff including AP2 watched the resident without intervening or calling 911 after there was no longer signs of his chest rising and falling for breaths viewed on the video footage. The resident was dead when law enforcement arrived. The investigator conducted interviews with facility staff members, including administrative staff, nursing staff, and unlicensed staff. The investigator contacted family and law enforcement. The investigation included review of the resident record, death record, video footage of the incident, facility internal investigation, facility incident reports, personnel files, staff schedules, law enforcement report, related facility policy and procedures. Also, the investigator observed the dining room, a meal service, and transfer assistance. The resident resided in an assisted living facility. The resident’s diagnoses included arthritis and vertigo. The resident’s service plan included assistance with safety checks due to being a fall risk, reminders to independently go to the dining room for meals, and transfer assistance with cues and standby assistance. The service of transfer assistance instructed staff to cue and prompt the resident through the transfer, and ensure the resident had any applicable mobility equipment nearby. The resident’s assessment indicated the resident needed cueing and/or standby assistance during transfers but stood independently. The assessment indicated he had several falls within a couple of months and identified him as being a fall risk, noting he may be unable to safely walk. The intervention plan in place for staff included promptly reporting falls to the nurse and completing fall safety checks. A facility incident report indicated a dietary staff member told AP2 the resident fell off his scooter and laid across it, with his neck being pinched between the scooter and a wall. AP2 attempted to call the lead staff for the building, but did not reach him, so AP2 called 911. AP2 then walked out of the dining room and called the lead staff member again. At that time, first responders arrived, disassembled the resident’s scooter, and removed it from his neck. Responders laid the resident on the floor and performed CPR until they pronounced him deceased. The law enforcement report indicated they arrived on scene at 5:35 p.m., after receiving a report of an unconscious resident. The resident appeared to have fallen off his electric scooter. His body wedged between the seat and steering column, with his head down on the floor between the scooter and corner of a wall. The resident’s upper body weight pressed down on his bent neck and head. The resident appeared blue in the face and did not have a pulse. After the fire department arrived, four responders lifted the resident off the scooter and onto the floor and started cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) until paramedics arrived and took over. Paramedics stopped CPR attempts and pronounced the resident deceased at 6:04 p.m. The resident’s death record identified positional asphyxia (the body being in a position which prevents the person from breathing) as the cause of death. The facility’s internal investigation indicated the resident got up from the dining room chair after dinner and tried to sit on his scooter, parked behind the dining chair. The resident sat down onto the scooter but leaned to the side. He eventually fell between the wall and the scooter head down. The resident fell at 5:29 p.m. A dining room resident and AP1 notified AP2 who approached the resident at 5:30 p.m. and attempted to contact others for assistance. Staff did not move the resident. The staff member notified 911 who arrived at 5:42 p.m. The responders needed to remove the scooter’s seat before several responders lifted the resident up and onto the floor. The responders attempted CPR and other medical care for about twenty minutes but were unsuccessful. Facility video footage showed the resident got up from a dining room chair and walk to his electric scooter behind him. The scooter faced the corner of the room. In the dining room, AP1 bussed and cleaned tables. The resident held onto the steering wheel of the scooter while trying to transfer onto the scooter. At 5:25 p.m., the resident sat down on his scooter at an angle, with his upper half leaning towards the wall and legs stretched out toward the center of the room. AP1 appeared to look over at the resident before going back to his job duties. The resident continued to lean further, as he struggled to get himself sitting upright with a rocking motion. AP1 walked towards the view off camera, appeared to speak to someone (no audio) with a hand gestured towards the resident. After about three minutes of slowly falling into a side lying position across the seat of his scooter, the resident appeared to twist and fall headfirst, laying face down across the seat of the scooter, still holding onto the steering wheel with his right hand. Toward the other side of the dining room, another resident pointed in the resident’s direction and appeared to have informed someone. At 5:29 p.m., the resident fell completely off the seat of his scooter, becoming wedged head-down. His head was pinned between the wall and the base of his electric scooter with his hips in between the steering column and seat, where feet would normally rest during operation. The resident’s right hand released from the steering wheel. He continued to move his legs intermittently. Less than a minute later, AP2 walked toward the resident but did not try to assist or touch him, and did not appear to talk to him. AP2 walked out of view briefly but then returned, eighter seconds later appearing to speak to AP1, dietary staff (DS)-1, and DS-2 with argumentative facial expressions, gesturing her arms towards the resident. The resident’s right arm continued to move intermittently and his back moving with his chest rising and falling with breaths. Two minutes after the resident’s head became stuck, AP2 began using a cell phone while speaking to AP1, DS-1, and DS-2, as they walked out of view. AP2 faced away from the resident. The resident’s back appeared to rise and fall for the two minutes in that position until rising and falling was no longer visible. AP2, still with her back to the resident, walked out of view, making a phone call. The resident remained alone for about two minutes, until DS-1 and DS-2 returned into view. ULP-1, and ULP-2 followed behind and walked over to the resident. ULP-1 tapped the resident on the back several times, and ULP-2 made a phone call. Less than one minute later, AP2 walked back into view and began speaking to the two ULPs, AP1, and DS-2. One minute later, AP2 made another call while the two ULPs stood over the resident and scooter.
2025-06-03Annual Compliance VisitNo findings
Plain-language summary
A routine inspection was conducted at Meadow Ridge Senior Living on June 3, 2025, and one violation was found related to fire protection and physical environment standards under Minnesota law. The facility was assessed a $500 fine for this violation and must document the corrective actions taken to bring the facility into compliance.
Full inspector notes
correction orders and document the actions taken to comply in the facility's records. The Department reserves the right to return to the facility at any time should the Department receive a complaint or deem it necessary to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of residents in your care. STATE CORRECTION ORDERS The enclosed State Form documents the state correction orders. MDH documents state licensing correction orders using federal software. Tag numbers are assigned to Minnesota state statutes for Assisted Living Facilities. The assigned tag number appears in the far left column entitled "ID Prefix Tag." The state statute number and the corresponding text of the state statute out of compliance are listed in the "Summary Statement of Deficiencies" column. This column also includes the findings that are in violation of the state statute after the statement, "This MN Requirement is not met as evidenced by . . ." IMPOSITION OF FINES In accordance with Minn. Stat. § 144G.31, Subd. 4, fines and enforcement actions may be imposed based on the level and scope of the violations and may be imposed immediately with no opportunity to correct the violation first as follows: Level 1: no fines or enforcement. Level 2: a fine of $500 per violation, in addition to any enforcement mechanism authorized in § 144G.20 for widespread violations; Level 3: a fine of $3,000 per violation per incident, in addition to any enforcement mechanism authorized in § 144G.20. Level 4: a fine of $5,000 per incident, in addition to any enforcement mechanism authorized in An equal opportunity employer. Letter ID: IS7N REVISED 09/13/2021 Meadow Ridge Senior Living August 4, 2025 Pa ge 2 § 144G.20. Level 5: a fine of $5,000 per Therefore, in accordance with Minn. Stat. §§ 144G.01 to 144G.9999, the following fines are assessed pursuant to this survey: St - 0 - 0775 - 144g.45 Subd. 2. (a) - Fire Protection And Physical Environment $500.00 Therefore, in accordance with Minn. Stat. §§ 144G.01 to 144G.9999, the total amount you are assessed is $500.00. You will be invoiced approximately 30 days after receipt of this notice, subject to appeal. DOCUMENTATION OF ACTION TO COMPLY In accordance with Minn. Stat. § 144G.30, Subd. 5( c), the licensee must document actions taken to comply with the correction orders within the time period outlined on the state form; however, plans of correction are not required to be submitted for approval. The correction order documentation should include the following: Identify how the area(s) of noncompliance was corrected related to the • resident(s)/employee(s) identified in the correction order. Identify how the area(s) of noncompliance was corrected for all of the provider’s • resident(s)/employees that may be affected by the noncompliance. Identify what changes to your systems and practices were made to ensure compliance with • the specific statute(s). CORRECTION ORDER RECONSIDERATION PROCESS In accordance with Minn. Stat. § 144G.32, Subd. 2, you may challenge the correction order(s) issued, including the level and scope, and any fine assessed through the correction order reconsideration process. The request for reconsideration must be in writing and received by MDH within 15 calendar days of the correction order receipt date. To submit a reconsideration request, please visit: https://forms.web.health.state.mn.us/form/HRDAppealsForm REQUESTING A HEARING Alternatively, in accordance with Minn. Stat. § 144G.31, Subd. 5(d), an assisted living provider that has been assessed a fine under this subdivision has a right to a reconsideration or a hearing under this section and chapter 14. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 144G.20, Subd. 14 and Subd. 18, a request for a hearing must be in writing and received by the Department of Health within 15 business days of the correction order receipt date. The request must contain a brief and plain statement describing each matter or issue contested and any new information you believe constitutes a defense or mitigating factor. Meadow Ridge Senior Living August 4, 2025 Pa ge 3 To submit a hearing request, please visit: https://forms.web.health. state.mn.us/form/ HRDAppealsForm To appeal fines via reconsideration, please follow the procedure outlined above. Please note that you may request a reconsideration or a hearing, but not both . If you wish to contest tags without fines in a reconsideration and tags with the fines at a hearing, please submit two separate appeals forms at the website listed above. The MDH Health Regulation Division (HRD) values your feedback about your experience during the survey and/or investigation process. Please fill out this anonymous provider feedback questionnaire at your convenience at this link: https://forms.office.com/g/Bm5uQEpHVa . Your input is important to us and will enable MDH to improve its processes and communication with providers. If you have any questions regarding the questionnaire, please contact Susan Winkelmann at susan.winkelmann@state.mn.us or call 651-201-5952. You are encouraged to retain this document for your records. It is your responsibility to share the information contained in the letter and state form with your organization’s Governing Body. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Casey DeVries, Supervisor State Evaluation Team Email: Casey.DeVries@state.mn.us Telephone: 651-201-5917 Fax: 1-866-890-9290 KKM PRINTED: 08/04/2025 FORM APPROVED STATEMENT OF DEFICIENCIES (X1) PROVIDER/SUPPLIER/CLIA (X2) MULTIPLE CONSTRUCTION (X3) DATE SURVEY AND PLAN OF CORRECTION IDENTIFICATION NUMBER: COMPLETED A. BUILDING: ______________________ B. WING _____________________________ 31962 06/03/2025 NAME OF PROVIDER OR SUPPLIER STREET ADDRESS, CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE 7475 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE MEADOW RIDGE SENIOR LIVING GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55427 SUMMARY STATEMENT OF DEFICIENCIES PROVIDER'S PLAN OF CORRECTION (X4) ID ID (X5) PREFIX (EACH DEFICIENCY MUST BE PRECEDED BY FULL PREFIX (EACH CORRECTIVE ACTION SHOULD BE COMPLETE REGULATORY OR LSC IDENTIFYING INFORMATION) CROSS-REFERENCED TO THE APPROPRIATE DATE TAG TAG DEFICIENCY) 0 000 Initial Comments 0 000 ***ATTENTION*** Minnesota Department of Health is documenting the State Correction Orders ASSISTED LIVING PROVIDER LICENSING using federal software. Tag numbers have CORRECTION ORDER(S) been assigned to Minnesota State Statutes for Assisted Living Facilities. The In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, section assigned tag number appears in the 144G.08 to 144G.95, these correction orders are far-left column entitled "ID Prefix Tag." The issued pursuant to a survey. state Statute number and the corresponding text of the state Statute out Determination of whether violations are corrected of compliance is listed in the "Summary requires compliance with all requirements Statement of Deficiencies" column. This provided at the Statute number indicated below. column also includes the findings which When Minnesota Statute contains several items, are in violation of the state requirement failure to comply with any of the items will be after the statement, "This Minnesota considered lack of compliance. requirement is not met as evidenced by." Following the evaluators ' findings is the INITIAL COMMENTS: Time Period for Correction. SL31962016-0 PLEASE DISREGARD THE HEADING OF THE FOURTH COLUMN WHICH On June 2, 2025, through June 3, 2025, the STATES,"PROVIDER'S PLAN OF survey at the above provider and the following FEDERAL DEFICIENCIES ONLY. THIS correction orders are issued. At the time of the WILL APPEAR ON EACH PAGE. survey, there were 98 residents; all 98 receiving services under the Assisted Living Facility with THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT TO Dementia Care license. SUBMIT A PLAN OF CORRECTION FOR VIOLATIONS OF MINNESOTA STATE STATUTES. THE LETTER IN THE LEFT COLUMN IS USED FOR TRACKING PURPOSES AND REFLECTS THE SCOPE AND LEVEL ISSUED PURSUANT TO 144G.31 SUBDIVISION 1-3. 0 480 144G.41 Subdivision 1 Subd. 1a (a-b) Minimum 0 480 SS=F requirements; required food services LABORATORY DIRECTOR'S OR PROVIDER/SUPPLIER REPRESENTATIVE'S SIGNATURE TITLE (X6) DATE STATE FORM 6899 ECLH11 If continuation sheet 1 of 29 PRINTED: 08/04/2025 FORM APPROVED STATEMENT OF DEFICIENCIES (X1) PROVIDER/SUPPLIER/CLIA (X2) MULTIPLE CONSTRUCTION (X3) DATE SURVEY AND PLAN OF CORRECTION IDENTIFICATION NUMBER: COMPLETED A. BUILDING: ______________________ B. WING _____________________________ 31962 06/03/2025 NAME OF PROVIDER OR SUPPLIER STREET ADDRESS, CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE 7475 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE MEADOW RIDGE SENIOR LIVING GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55427 SUMMARY STATEMENT OF DEFICIENCIES PROVIDER'S PLAN OF CORRECTION (X4) ID ID (X5) PREFIX (EACH DEFICIENCY MUST BE PRECEDED BY FULL PREFIX (EACH CORRECTIVE ACTION SHOULD BE COMPLETE REGULATORY OR LSC IDENTIFYING INFORMATION) CROSS-REFERENCED TO THE APPROPRIATE DATE TAG TAG DEFICIENCY) 0 480 Continued From page 1 0 480 (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), food must be prepared and served according to the Minnesota Food Code, Minnesota Rules, chapter 4626. (b) For an assisted living facility with a licensed capacity of ten or fewer residents: (1) notwithstanding Minnesota Rules, part 4626.
2025-04-23Complaint InvestigationNo findings
Plain-language summary
I don't have enough substantive information from this document to write an accurate summary. The text appears to be instructions and form headers rather than actual inspection findings or violation details. To provide families with a meaningful summary, I would need the specific violations found, what rules were violated, and the timeframe for correction.
Full inspector notes
findings which are in violation of the state requirement after the statement, "This Minnesota requirement is not met as evidenced by." Following the evaluators' findings is the Time Period for Correction. PLEASE DISREGARD THE HEADING OF THE FOURTH COLUMN WHICH STATES,"PROVIDER'S PLAN OF CORRECTION." THIS APPLIES TO FEDERAL DEFICIENCIES ONLY. THIS WILL APPEAR ON EACH PAGE. THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT TO SUBMIT A PLAN OF CORRECTION FOR VIOLATIONS OF MINNESOTA STATE STATUTES. THE LETTER IN THE LEFT COLUMN IS USED FOR TRACKING PURPOSES AND REFLECTS THE SCOPE AND LEVEL ISSUED PURSUANT TO 144G.31 SUBDIVISION 1-3. LABORATORY DIRECTOR'S OR PROVIDER/SUPPLIER REPRESENTATIVE'S SIGNATURE TITLE (X6) DATE STATE FORM 6899 WIJX11 If continuation sheet 1 of 1
2025-04-18Complaint InvestigationNo findings
Plain-language summary
Minnesota Department of Health investigated a complaint that a staff member neglected a resident by failing to administer medications as prescribed. A medication administration error did occur when staff accidentally included an evening dose in the morning dose, resulting in the resident receiving a higher dose than ordered; the resident was hospitalized for observation and returned to baseline health status the next day. The Department determined the neglect allegation was not substantiated, as the error was an isolated incident rather than a pattern of neglect, and the facility implemented additional training and changed its medication administration procedures in response.
Full inspector notes
Finding: Not Substantiated Nature of Investigation: The Minnesota Department of Health investigated an allegation of maltreatment, in accordance with the Minnesota Reporting of Maltreatment of Vulnerable Adults Act, Minn. Stat. 626.557, and to evaluate compliance with applicable licensing standards for the provider type. Initial Investigation Allegation(s): The alleged perpetrator (AP) neglected the resident when they failed to administer medications as prescribed. Investigative Findings and Conclusion: The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was not substantiated. Although a medication administration error occurred, it was an isolated incident. The resident was monitored and treated at a local hospital before returning to the facility at their baseline health status. There was not a preponderance of evidence to support that the actions of the facility staff met the definition of neglect. The investigator conducted interviews with facility staff members, including nursing staff. The investigation included review of the resident record, personnel files, employee training files, and facility policy and procedures. The investigator also toured the facility and observed staff members interacting with residents. The resident resided in an assisted living facility. The resident’s diagnoses included epilepsy and osteoporosis. The resident’s service plan included assistance with all activities of daily living, routine safety checks, and medication administration. The resident’s assessment indicated nursing staff to provide medication setup and assist with medication administration. The resident has had a history of hospitalization for altered mental status related to seizures. Documentation indicated that during morning medication administration the AP (facility staff member) took medication from a pill dispenser slated for the evening dose and included it in the morning dose preparations. This resulted in the resident being given a higher dose of medication than was ordered. A facility nurse doing a routine medication inventory discovered the error and reported it. The facility contacted the resident’s provider and after observing a change in condition, the resident was transported to a local hospital for further observation. As a result of the incident, the facility changed the method of medication set-up and delivery for this resident. The resident returned to her baseline medical status and returned to the facility the next day. During an interview, a nurse said that the resident returned to the facility days before the incident following a hospital stay and a new process for medication administration had been implemented prior to her return. The resident no longer used a weekly medication set up container and all medication was now being delivered and distributed from a pill pack card (a container holding pills in individual sealed compartments). This process was well established through out the facility and the AP had been trained in its use. During an interview, a second nurse said on the morning of the incident as she was reviewing the morning medication inventory logs when she identified an error in where a medication prescribed to be given in the evening was documented as given that morning. Further investigation uncovered that the AP documented distributing both the morning and evening doses of a medication. When the nurse asked the AP about the error, the AP’s explanation was that she got confused with the change in the medication process. During an interview, the AP stated that prior to the incident, the resident had been receiving medication set up services by the facility nurse who placed all the required individual medication doses into a weekly planner for retrieval. Days prior to the incident, the resident’s medication administration process had transitioned to being dispensed from individual medication cards, which held pills in a bubble pack for individual dispensing. The AP said she was familiar with this medication administration process and was previously trained in its use, as other residents in the facility required set up and some did not. The AP stated that in addition to the scheduled morning dose, she was confused with the medication names and similar doses, and it appeared that she also dispensed a medication scheduled for evening administration that same day. In conclusion, the Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was not substantiated. “Not Substantiated” means: An investigatory conclusion indicating the preponderance of evidence shows that an act meeting the definition of maltreatment did not occur. Neglect: Minnesota Statutes, section 626.5572, subdivision 17 “Neglect” means neglect by a caregiver or self-neglect. (a) "Caregiver neglect" means the failure or omission by a caregiver to supply a vulnerable adult with care or services, including but not limited to, food, clothing, shelter, health care, or supervision which is: (1) reasonable and necessary to obtain or maintain the vulnerable adult's physical or mental health or safety, considering the physical and mental capacity or dysfunction of the vulnerable adult; and (2) which is not the result of an accident or therapeutic conduct. Vulnerable Adult interviewed: No, attempts to contact were unsuccessful. Family/Responsible Party interviewed: No, attempts to contact were unsuccessful. Alleged Perpetrator interviewed: Yes Action taken by facility: Nursing staff monitored the resident for a change in health status and notified emergency medical services when needed. The facility conducted additional individual and facility wide training and reeducation on the medication administration process. Action taken by the Minnesota Department of Health: No further action taken at this time. cc: The Office of Ombudsman for Long Term Care The Office of Ombudsman for Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities PRINTED: 04/23/2025 FORM APPROVED STATEMENT OF DEFICIENCIES (X1) PROVIDER/SUPPLIER/CLIA (X2) MULTIPLE CONSTRUCTION (X3) DATE SURVEY AND PLAN OF CORRECTION IDENTIFICATION NUMBER: COMPLETED A. BUILDING: ______________________ C B. WING _____________________________ 31962 04/03/2025 NAME OF PROVIDER OR SUPPLIER STREET ADDRESS, CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE 7475 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE MEADOW RIDGE SENIOR LIVING GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55427 SUMMARY STATEMENT OF DEFICIENCIES PROVIDER'S PLAN OF CORRECTION (X4) ID ID (X5) PREFIX (EACH DEFICIENCY MUST BE PRECEDED BY FULL PREFIX (EACH CORRECTIVE ACTION SHOULD BE COMPLETE REGULATORY OR LSC IDENTIFYING INFORMATION) CROSS-REFERENCED TO THE APPROPRIATE DATE TAG TAG DEFICIENCY) 0 000 Initial Comments 0 000 On April 3, 2025, the Minnesota Department of Assisted Living Provider 144G. Health initiated an investigation of complaint # HL319627483C and Minnesota Department of Health is #HL319626064C/#HL319628642M. No correction documenting the State Correction Orders orders are issued. using federal software. Tag numbers have been assigned to Minnesota State Statutes for Assisted Living Facilities. The assigned tag number appears in the far-left column entitled "ID Prefix Tag." The state Statute number and the corresponding text of the state Statute out of compliance is listed in the "Summary Statement of Deficiencies" column. This column also includes the findings which are in violation of the state requirement after the statement, "This Minnesota requirement is not met as evidenced by." Following the evaluators' findings is the Time Period for Correction. PLEASE DISREGARD THE HEADING OF THE FOURTH COLUMN WHICH STATES,"PROVIDER'S PLAN OF CORRECTION." THIS APPLIES TO FEDERAL DEFICIENCIES ONLY. THIS WILL APPEAR ON EACH PAGE. THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT TO SUBMIT A PLAN OF CORRECTION FOR VIOLATIONS OF MINNESOTA STATE STATUTES. THE LETTER IN THE LEFT COLUMN IS USED FOR TRACKING PURPOSES AND REFLECTS THE SCOPE AND LEVEL ISSUED PURSUANT TO 144G.31 SUBDIVISION 1-3. LABORATORY DIRECTOR'S OR PROVIDER/SUPPLIER REPRESENTATIVE'S SIGNATURE TITLE (X6) DATE STATE FORM 6899 WIJX11 If continuation sheet 1 of 1
2023-08-02Annual Compliance VisitNo findings
Plain-language summary
A routine inspection of Meadow Ridge Senior Living on September 6, 2023 found violations in infection control practices and appropriate care and services; the facility was issued correction orders and assessed a total fine of $3,500. The facility must document how it corrected these violations and made system changes to prevent future noncompliance. The facility has the right to request reconsideration or a hearing within 15 business days if it wishes to challenge the findings.
Full inspector notes
CORRECTION ORDERS The enclosed State Form documents the state correction orders. The MDH documents state licensing correction orders using federal software. Tag numbers are assigned to Minnesota state statutes for Assisted Living Facilities. The assigned tag number appears in the far left column entitled "ID Prefix Tag." The state statute number and the corresponding text of the state statute out of compliance are listed in the "Summary Statement of Deficiencies" column. This column also includes the findings that are in violation of the state statute after the statement, "This MN Requirement is not met as evidenced by . . ." IMPOSITION OF FINES In accordance with Minn. Stat. § 144G.31, Subd. 4, fines and enforcement actions may be imposed based on the level and scope of the violations and may be imposed immediately with no opportunity to correct the violation first as follows: Level 1: no fines or enforcement. Level 2: a fine of $500 per violation, in addition to any enforcement mechanism authorized in § 144G.20 for widespread violations; Level 3: a fine of $3,000 per violation per incident, in addition to any enforcement mechanism authorized in § 144G.20. Level 4: a fine of $5,000 per incident, in addition to any enforcement mechanism authorized in § 144G.20. In accordance with Minn. Stat. § 144G.31, Subd. 4 (a)(5), the MDH may impose fine amounts of either $1,000 or $5,000 to licensees who are found to be responsible for maltreatment. The MDH may impose a fine of $1,000 for each substantiated maltreatment violation that consists of An equal opportunity employer. Letter ID: IS7N REVISED 09/13/2021 Meadow Ridge Senior Living September 6, 2023 Page 2 abuse, neglect, or financial exploitation according to Minn. Stat. § 626.5572, Subds. 2, 9, 17. The MDH also may impose a fine of $5,000 for each substantiated maltreatment violation consisting of sexual assault, death, or abuse resulting in serious injury. In accordance with Minn. Stat. § 144G.31, Subd. 4 (b), when a fine is assessed against a facility for substantiated maltreatment, the commissioner shall not also impose an immediate fine under this chapter for the same circumstance. Therefore, in accordance with Minn. Stat. §§ 144G.01 to 144G.9999, the following fines are assessed pursuant to this survey: St - 0 - 0510 - 144g.41 Subd. 3 - Infection Control Program - $500.00 St - 0 - 2310 - 144g.91 Subd. 4 (a) - Appropriate Care And Services - $3,000.00 Therefore, in accordance with Minn. Stat. §§ 144G.01 to 144G.9999, t he total amount you are assessed is $3,500.00. You will be invoiced approximately 30 days after receipt of this notice, subject to appeal. DOCUMENTATION OF ACTION TO COMPLY In accordance with Minn. Stat. § 144G.30, Subd. 5(c), the licensee must document actions taken to comply with the correction orders within the time period outlined on the state form; however, plans of correction are not required to be submitted for approval. The correction order documentation should include the following: Identify how the area(s) of noncompliance was corrected related to the resident(s)/employee(s) identified in the correction order. Identify how the area(s) of noncompliance was corrected for all of the provider’s resident(s)/employees that may be affected by the noncompliance. Identify what changes to your systems and practices were made to ensure compliance with the specific statute(s). CORRECTION ORDER RECONSIDERATION PROCESS In accordance with Minn. Stat. § 144G.32, Subd. 2, you may challenge the correction order(s) issued, including the level and scope, and any fine assessed through the correction order reconsideration process. The request for reconsideration must be in writing and received by the MDH within 15 calendar days of the correction order receipt date. A state correction order under Minn. Stat. § 144G.91, Subd. 8, Free from Maltreatment is associated with a maltreatment determination by the Office of Health Facility Complaints. If maltreatment is substantiated, you will receive a separate letter with the reconsideration process under Minn. Stat. § 626.557. Meadow Ridge Senior Living September 6, 2023 Page 3 Please email reconsideration requests to: Health.HRD.Appeals@state.mn.us. Please attach this letter as part of your reconsideration request. Please clearly indicate which tag(s) you are contesting and submit information supporting your position(s). Please address your cover letter for reconsideration requests to: Reconsideration Unit 85 East Seventh Place St. Paul, MN 55164-0970 REQUESTING A HEARING Alternatively, in accordance with Minn. Stat. § 144G.31, Subd. 5(d), an assisted living provider that has been assessed a fine under this subdivision has a right to a reconsideration or a hearing under this section and chapter 14. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 144G.20, Subd. 14 and Subd. 18, a request for a hearing must be in writing and received by the MDH within 15 business days of the correction order receipt date. The request must contain a brief and plain statement describing each matter or issue contested and any new information you believe constitutes a defense or mitigating factor. Requests for hearing may be emailed to: Health.HRD.Appeals@state.mn.us. To appeal fines via reconsideration, please follow the procedure outlined above. P lease note that you may request a reconsideration o r a hearing, but not both. You are encouraged to retain this document for your records. It is your responsibility to share the information contained in the letter and state form with your organization’s Governing Body. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Casey DeVries, Supervisor State Evaluation Team Email: casey.devries@state.mn.us Telephone: 651-201-5917 Fax: 651-281-9796 HHH PRINTED: 09/06/2023 FORM APPROVED STATEMENT OF DEFICIENCIES (X1) PROVIDER/SUPPLIER/CLIA (X2) MULTIPLE CONSTRUCTION (X3) DATE SURVEY AND PLAN OF CORRECTION IDENTIFICATION NUMBER: COMPLETED A. BUILDING: ______________________ B. WING _____________________________ 31962 08/02/2023 NAME OF PROVIDER OR SUPPLIER STREET ADDRESS, CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE 7475 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE MEADOW RIDGE SENIOR LIVING GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55427 SUMMARY STATEMENT OF DEFICIENCIES PROVIDER'S PLAN OF CORRECTION (X4) ID ID (X5) PREFIX (EACH DEFICIENCY MUST BE PRECEDED BY FULL PREFIX (EACH CORRECTIVE ACTION SHOULD BE COMPLETE REGULATORY OR LSC IDENTIFYING INFORMATION) CROSS-REFERENCED TO THE APPROPRIATE DATE TAG TAG DEFICIENCY) 0 000 Initial Comments 0 000 ******ATTENTION****** Minnesota Department of Health is documenting the State Correction Orders ASSISTED LIVING PROVIDER LICENSING using federal software. Tag numbers have CORRECTION ORDER(S) been assigned to Minnesota State Statutes for Assisted Living License In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, section Providers. The assigned tag number 144G.08 to 144G.95, these correction orders are appears in the far-left column entitled "ID issued pursuant to a survey. Prefix Tag." The state Statute number and the corresponding text of the state Statute Determination of whether violations are corrected out of compliance is listed in the requires compliance with all requirements "Summary Statement of Deficiencies" provided at the Statute number indicated below. column. This column also includes the When Minnesota Statute contains several items, findings which are in violation of the state failure to comply with any of the items will be requirement after the statement, "This considered lack of compliance. Minnesota requirement is not met as evidenced by." Following the surveyors' INITIAL COMMENTS: findings is the Time Period for Correction. SL31962015-0 PLEASE DISREGARD THE HEADING OF On July 31, 2023, through August 2, 2023, the THE FOURTH COLUMN WHICH survey at the above provider, and the following CORRECTION." THIS APPLIES TO correction orders are issued. At the time of the FEDERAL DEFICIENCIES ONLY. THIS survey, there were 88 active residents; all of WILL APPEAR ON EACH PAGE. whom were receiving services under the Assisted Living with Dementia Care license. THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT TO SUBMIT A PLAN OF CORRECTION FOR An immediate correction order was identified on VIOLATIONS OF MINNESOTA STATE August 1, 2023, issued for SL31962015-0, tag STATUTES. identification 2310. The letter in the left column is used for On August 2, 2023, the immediacy of correction tracking purposes and reflects the scope order 2310 was removed, however, and level issued pursuant to 144G.31 non-compliance remained at a level 3, subd. 1, 2, and 3. widespread scope violation. 0 480 144G.41 Subd 1 (13) (i) (B) Minimum 0 480 SS=F requirements LABORATORY DIRECTOR'S OR PROVIDER/SUPPLIER REPRESENTATIVE'S SIGNATURE TITLE (X6) DATE STATE FORM 6899 JVZV11 If continuation sheet 1 of 29 PRINTED: 09/06/2023 FORM APPROVED STATEMENT OF DEFICIENCIES (X1) PROVIDER/SUPPLIER/CLIA (X2) MULTIPLE CONSTRUCTION (X3) DATE SURVEY AND PLAN OF CORRECTION IDENTIFICATION NUMBER: COMPLETED A. BUILDING: ______________________ B.
Other facilities in Hennepin County.
Other memory care facilities in Hennepin County with similar care offerings.
Family reviews
No reviews yet — be the first to share your experience
No published reviews yet. Use the button above to share your experience.
Other memory care options nearby.
More options in neighboring cities
Licensed memory care in other cities within this county region — useful when your search radius crosses city limits.


