MEADOWPARK HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Meadowpark Health and Rehabilitation Center in Dunedin, Florida has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided, which places it in the poor category. It ranks #529 out of 690 nursing homes in Florida, meaning it is in the bottom half of facilities statewide, and #38 out of 64 in Pinellas County, suggesting limited local options for better care. While the facility's trend shows improvement, dropping from 10 issues in 2023 to 5 in 2024, its staffing rating is average with a concerning turnover rate of 68%, significantly higher than the state average. Notably, it has incurred $72,858 in fines, which is higher than 86% of Florida facilities, indicating ongoing compliance issues. Specific incidents include a failure to prevent a resident at risk of elopement from accessing unsafe areas, which poses serious safety risks, as well as inadequate management of grievances for multiple residents, highlighting weaknesses in both safety measures and communication. While there is above-average RN coverage, the overall performance raises important questions for families considering this facility for their loved ones.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Florida
- #529/690
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 68% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $72,858 in fines. Lower than most Florida facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 57 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Florida. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 20 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Below Florida average (3.2)
Below average - review inspection findings carefully
21pts above Florida avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Well above median ($33,413)
Moderate penalties - review what triggered them
20 points above Florida average of 48%
The Ugly 20 deficiencies on record
Nov 2024
5 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure resident rights were honored for two resident...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the development of a person-centered care pla...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to honor the right of the resident's representative to participate in the development of the resident's care plan for one resi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to provide Activities of Daily Living (ADL) services r...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Grievances
(Tag F0585)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the grievance process was conducted to resol...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2023
7 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0676
(Tag F0676)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one (Resident #24) of one sampled resident rec...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Incontinence Care
(Tag F0690)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure the urinary drainage bag was maintained in a s...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0699
(Tag F0699)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one (Resident #26) of one sampled resident, wh...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
PASARR Coordination
(Tag F0644)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY**
Based on record review, interview, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to ensure the accuracy of a Preadmi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement care plans for six (Residents #...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0692
(Tag F0692)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facilty failed failed to obtain and document current body weight of two ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Drug Regimen Review
(Tag F0756)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY**
On 12/4/2023 at 9:30 a.m., and 3:00 p.m., Resident # 77 was observed both times laying down in his bed with his call light with...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2023
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility did not ensure a safe, clean, and homelike environment for ei...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2023
2 deficiencies
2 IJ
CRITICAL
(J)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews with the nursing staff, Nursing Home Administrator, the Director of Nursing, the facility's Me...
Read full inspector narrative →
CRITICAL
(J)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews with the nursing staff, Nursing Home Administrator, the Director of Nursing, the facility's Me...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2021
4 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a dignified existence related to dining for on...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that a resident centered care plan was develo...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0694
(Tag F0694)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide Intravenous (IV) care according to profession...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Unnecessary Medications
(Tag F0759)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure that the medication error rate was below 5.00%. A total of twenty-eight medications were observed, and eleven late medic...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2020
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview record and policy review, the facility failed to maintain an effective infection prevention and control program by 1. not cleaning a glucose meter after use for four re...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
- "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 2 life-threatening violation(s), $72,858 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 20 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $72,858 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Florida. Major compliance failures.
- • Grade F (16/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Meadowpark Center's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns MEADOWPARK HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered below average nationally. Within Florida, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.
How is Meadowpark Center Staffed?
CMS rates MEADOWPARK HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 68%, which is 21 percentage points above the Florida average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 71%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.
What Have Inspectors Found at Meadowpark Center?
State health inspectors documented 20 deficiencies at MEADOWPARK HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER during 2020 to 2024. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 18 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.
Who Owns and Operates Meadowpark Center?
MEADOWPARK HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 120 certified beds and approximately 107 residents (about 89% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in DUNEDIN, Florida.
How Does Meadowpark Center Compare to Other Florida Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Florida, MEADOWPARK HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (68%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Meadowpark Center?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations and the facility's high staff turnover rate.
Is Meadowpark Center Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, MEADOWPARK HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 2-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Florida. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.
Do Nurses at Meadowpark Center Stick Around?
Staff turnover at MEADOWPARK HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER is high. At 68%, the facility is 21 percentage points above the Florida average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 71%. RNs handle complex medical decisions and coordinate care — frequent RN changes can directly impact care quality. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?
Was Meadowpark Center Ever Fined?
MEADOWPARK HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER has been fined $72,858 across 1 penalty action. This is above the Florida average of $33,807. Fines in this range indicate compliance issues significant enough for CMS to impose meaningful financial consequences. Common causes include delayed correction of deficiencies, repeat violations, or care failures affecting resident safety. Families should ask facility leadership what changes have been made since these penalties.
Is Meadowpark Center on Any Federal Watch List?
MEADOWPARK HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER is not on any federal watch list. The most significant is the Special Focus Facility (SFF) program, which identifies the bottom 1% of nursing homes nationally based on persistent, serious quality problems. Not being on this list means the facility has avoided the pattern of deficiencies that triggers enhanced federal oversight. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review the facility's inspection history directly.