Ecumen Worthington the Meadows.
Ecumen Worthington the Meadows is Grade C, ranked in the top 49% of Minnesota memory care with 1 MDH citation on record; last inspected Dec 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
Ecumen Worthington the Meadows 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)
Questions to ask before you visit.
A short pre-tour checklist tailored to Ecumen Worthington the Meadows's record and state requirements.
The most recent Minnesota Department of Health inspection on November 3, 2022 found zero deficiencies across 128 licensed beds — can you walk us through how the facility maintains compliance with Minnesota Statute Chapter 144G Assisted Living with Dementia Care requirements, and what internal auditing or quality assurance processes are in place?
Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.
MDH records show one complaint was filed during the inspection period on file — can you explain what that complaint involved, whether it was substantiated, and what steps the facility took in response?
Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.
This facility holds an Assisted Living Facility with Dementia Care license under Minnesota law — can you provide families with a copy of your written dementia care program and describe how staff demonstrate competency in dementia-specific care practices?
Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.
Every MDH visit, verbatim.
2 inspections in the public record, most recent first. Click any row to expand — cited rows open automatically.
2025-12-11Annual Compliance VisitNo findings
Plain-language summary
A routine inspection of Ecumen Worthington The Meadows was conducted on December 11, 2025, and one violation was found related to fire protection and physical environment under Minnesota state law. The facility was assessed a $500 fine for this Level 2 violation and must document the actions taken to correct it.
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 CORRECTIO NORDERS 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; Level 3: a fine of $1,000 per incident, in addition to any enforcement mechanism authorized in § 144G.20; An equal opportunity employer. Letter ID: IS7N REVISE D09/13/2021 Ecumen Worthington The Meadows February 17, 2026 Page 2 Level 4: a fine of $3,000 per incident, in addition to any enforcement mechanism authorized in § 144G.20; Level 5: a fine of $5,000 per violation, in addition to any enforcement mechanism authorized in § 144G.20. 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 The refor e, in accor danc e wit h Minn. Sta t. §§ 144G.01 to 144G.999 9, the total amount you are assessed is $500.00. You will be invoiced approximately 30 days after receipt of this notice, subject to appeal . DOCUMENTATIO ONF ACTION TO COMPLY In accorda nce with Min n. Stat. § 144G.30, Sub d. 5(c), th e lic ens ee mus t docum ent ac tions taken t o 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). CORRECTIO NORDER RECONSIDERATIO PNROCESS 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 REQUESTIN GA 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 Ecumen Worthington The Meadows February 17, 2026 Page 3 factor. To submit a hearing request, please visit: https: / / forms. web. health. state. mn. us/ form/ HRDAppealsForm To appe al fi nes via re cons iderat ion , pl ease follow the procedu r e outl ined abo ve. Plea se no te tha t you may re que st a rec onside rati on or a hearing, bu t not bot h. If you wish to cont est ta gs with out fine s 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 conv enien ce at thi s link: https: / / forms. office.com/ g/ Bm5uQEpHVa. Your inpu t is import ant 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, Jodi Johnson, Supervisor State Evaluation Team Email: Jodi.Johnson@state. mn.us Telephone: 507-344-2730 Fax: 1-866-890-9290 HHH PRINTED: 02/ 17/ 2026 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 _____________________________ 20011 12/ 11/2025 NAME OF PROVIDER OR SUPPLIER STREET ADDRESS, CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE 1801 COLLEGEWAY ECUMEN WORTHINGTON THE MEADOWS WORTHINGTON, MN 56187 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. SL20011016- 0 PLEASE DISREGARD THE HEADING OF THE FOURTH COLUMN WHICH On December 8, 2025, through December 11, STATES, "PROVIDER' S PLAN OF 2025, the Minnesota Department of Health CORRECTION. " THIS APPLIES TO conducted a full survey at the above provider and FEDERAL DEFICIENCIES ONLY. THIS the following correction orders are issued. At the WILL APPEAR ON EACH PAGE. time of the survey, there were 107 residents; 67 receiving services under the Assisted Living THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT TO Facility with 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 YZC811 If continuation sheet 1 of 39 PRINTED: 02/ 17/ 2026 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.
2024-09-04Complaint Investigation1 · Substantiated Finding
Plain-language summary
Minnesota Department of Health investigated a complaint of neglect after a resident with a history of blood thinner use fell and hit his head in the bathroom; staff were notified the resident hit his head but the on-call nurse did not arrange additional monitoring, and the resident became unresponsive later that day and died at the hospital from a subdural hemorrhage. The investigation substantiated neglect and found the facility responsible for failing to ensure appropriate follow-up care after the resident's head injury, particularly given his high fall risk and blood thinner medication.
“MDH substantiated maltreatment or licensing violation finding”
Full inspector notes
Finding: Substantiated, facility responsibility s n o c Nature of Investigation: e The Minnesota Department of HealthR investigated an allegation of maltreatment, in accordance with the Minnesota Reporting of Maltreatment of Vulnerable Adults Act, Minn. Stat. 626.557, r o and to evaluate compliance with applicable licensing standards for the provider type. f t s e Initial Investigation Allegation(s): u q The facility neglected the resident when the facility failed to ensure appropriate follow-up care e was provided for aR resident who hit his head during a fall. Later the same day, the resident was unresponsive and sent to the hospital where he passed away. Investigative Findings and Conclusion: The Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was substantiated. The facility was responsible for the maltreatment. The resident had a history of chronic blood thinner use, and after the resident fell he told staff he hit his head during the fall. The resident was unable to be aroused by staff later that same day and emergency services were contacted to transport the resident to the hospital. The resident was diagnosed with a subdural hemorrhage (a type of bleeding in the head that us usually caused by serious head injuries and can be lift threatening) and died. The investigator conducted interviews with facility staff members, including administrative staff, nursing staff, and unlicensed staff. The investigation included review of the resident ‘s medical records, death record, facility incident reports, staff schedules, and related facility policy and procedures. Also, the investigator observed staff members interacting with residents. The resident resided in an assisted living facility with diagnoses including Parkinson’s disease, long term use of blood thinner, and mild cognitive impairment. The resident’s service plan included assistance with transferring and toileting. The resident’s assessment indicated he was at high risk for falls, tired easily with any effort, used a four wheeled walker, and needed the physical assist of one person for toileting. Review of the fall incident report indicated the resident had a fall in the early morning hours. d The resident was alone in the bathroom while a staff member was picking out clothing for the e resident. The report indicated the resident hit his head, sustained a svkin tear, and was i e transferred back to bed and made comfortable. In the evening, the resident went to the c e emergency room for a change in level of consciousness. r n o The residents progress notes, entered by a nurse approximately four hours after the fall, i t indicated an unlicensed personnel member contacteda the on-call nurse approximately thirty r minutes after the residents fall to report the incideent. The note indicated the resident had a skin d tear to his right arm, usual range of motion and was, “aware and alert, acting his usual self. No i s other changes or concerns at this time.” The nnurse wrote, “Instructed caller to call the nurse o back for questions or changes. Caller verbalizes understanding and denies any other needs. Plan c e of care ongoing.” R r o Progress notes from approximately eighteen hours after the fall indicated an unlicensed staff f contacted the on-call nurse tot report the resident was transferred to the hospital due to a s e change in level of consciousness. u q e Review of the resident’s hospital record indicated the resident was diagnosed with traumatic R subdural hemorrhage with loss of consciousness and compression of the brain. The record indicated the resident was unresponsive, had snoring respirations and dried blood in his mouth. Due to likelihood of a very poor outcome, surgery was not recommended. The resident was placed on comfort care and died. Review of the resident’s death record indicated the resident’s immediate cause of death was complications of closed head injury due to a fall to floor. During interview, an unlicensed staff stated the resident was in the bathroom and she was in the closet next to the resident’s bathroom when she heard a loud noise. The unlicensed staff went into the bathroom, saw the resident on the floor and called a co-worker to assist. The resident did not know how he fell and stated he was not hurt, but that he hit his head, and the resident had a skin tear on his arm. The unlicensed staff completed a facility incident report and contacted the on-call nurse. The on-call nurse instructed the unlicensed staff member to call back with any concerns. During interview, a second unlicensed staff stated he was called by a co-worker to assist the resident after a fall. The resident was, “shaken-up,” and reported hitting his head. The second unlicensed staff stated he did not know if the resident was on blood thinners and did not know if there would be additional concerns regarding a resident hitting their head when taking blood thinners. During interview, a nurse stated she received a call in the early morning hours from a staff and was told the resident fell while in the bathroom and sustained a skin tear. Staff reported the resident’s range of motion was normal and he was awake and alert. The nurse directed staff to d contact the on-call service if there were any changes and the nurse stated she did not enter any e extra checks or monitoring services into the resident’s record. The nuvrse stated she did not i e recollect information outside of a progress note she wrote in the resident’s chart and did not c e recollect if there was anything concerning that would have warranted further consideration r regarding the resident. The nurse stated on-call nurses have access to resident medical records, n o including medications and services. i t a r During interview, a third unlicensed staff stated shee was assigned to the resident during the d afternoon hours after the fall and saw a note regarding the resident’s fall during the morning i s hours and that the resident progressed throungh his day as he normally did. The unlicensed staff o stated the resident typically went to bed for a bit during the day, but that he did not call for c e assistance to get out of bed in the afternoon as he usually did. The unlicensed staff checked on R the resident and he was snoring and appeared to be in a deep sleep. During suppertime, the r o resident still was not up, which was unusual. The hour after supper the unlicensed staff stated f the resident would not get up tand was still snoring. The staff stated she and another staff s e member tried to sit the resident up in bed, but he would not open his eyes. The staff member u stated she contacted thqe nurse and was instructed to call for an ambulance. e R During interview a second nurse stated the facility was attempting to make sure that residents are sent to the hospital for follow-up care when a resident hits their head or has a fall when taking blood thinners. In conclusion, the Minnesota Department of Health determined neglect was substantiated. Substantiated: Minnesota Statutes, section 626.5572, Subdivision 19. “Substantiated” means a preponderance of evidence shows that an act that meets the definition of maltreatment occurred. 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, resident deceased. Family/Responsible Party interviewed: Yes. Alleged Perpetrator interviewed: Not Applicable. d Action taken by facility: e Facility conducted an internal review of the incident. v i e c Action taken by the Minnesota Department of Health: e r The responsible party will be notified of their right to appeal the maltreatment finding. n o i t The facility was found to be in noncompliance. To view a copy of the Statement of Deficiencies a r and/or correction orders, please visit: e d i s https://www.health.state.mn.us/facilities/regulation/directory/provcompselect.
1 older inspection from 2022 are not shown in the free view.
1 older inspection (2022–2023) are available with a premium membership.
Other facilities in Worthington.
Other memory care facilities near Worthington 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.