Accura Healthcare of Shenandoah
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Accura Healthcare of Shenandoah has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. This places them at #320 out of 392 nursing homes in Iowa, placing them in the bottom half of facilities in the state and only ahead of one other facility in Page County. The facility is reportedly improving, having reduced issues from eight in 2024 to just one in 2025, but staffing remains a concern with a low rating of 1 out of 5 stars and a turnover rate of 60%, which is notably higher than the Iowa average of 44%. Notably, there were critical incidents involving staff misconduct, including reports of abuse towards residents, with one staff member being accused of physically intimidating residents and not following proper care protocols. Although there were some strengths in the facility's trend toward improvement, the high number of incidents and low staffing quality raise serious concerns for families considering this option for their loved ones.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Iowa
- #320/392
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 60% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ⚠ Watch
- $8,414 in fines. Higher than 75% of Iowa facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
- Skilled Nurses ○ Average
- Each resident gets 37 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Iowa. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 27 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in fire safety.
The Bad
Below Iowa average (3.0)
Significant quality concerns identified by CMS
14pts above Iowa avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
12 points above Iowa average of 48%
The Ugly 27 deficiencies on record
Sept 2025
1 deficiency
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
Deficiency F0727
(Tag F0727)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on document review, staff interview and policy review the facility failed to ensure a Registered Nurse (RN) was in the facility for eight (8) consecutive hours for 6 of 90 days reviewed (April 1...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2024
7 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0582
(Tag F0582)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on clinical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to obtain physical signatures or record attempts to obtain physical signatures on notification of the Notice of Medicare Non-Co...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, and staff interviews the facility failed to represent an accurate assessment of the resident's ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0658
(Tag F0658)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #6 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) scor...
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** 3. The MDS assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #22 documented a BIMS score of 8 indicating moderate cognitive impairment. The M...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0727
(Tag F0727)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on facility document review and staff interview the facility failed to ensure a Registered Nurse (RN) was in the facility for eight (8) consecutive hours for 7 of 33 days reviewed. The facility ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations, staff interviews, and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure proper sanitary conditions in the kitchen area, where staff prepared food, and failed to keep utensils...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #25 documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) sco...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2024
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
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, hospital record review, staff interviews, and facility provided document review the facility fa...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2023
3 deficiencies
2 IJ (1 affecting multiple)
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, record review, facility investigation file review, resident interview, staff interviews, and facility pol...
Read full inspector narrative →
CRITICAL
(K)
📢 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
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations, record review, facility investigation file review, resident interview, staff interviews, and facility policy review the facility failed to report abuse concerns involving 3 of 6...
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
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, clinical record review, resident interview, staff interviews and facility policy review the facility failed to treat 1 of 6 residents (Resident #6) reviewed, in a dignified mann...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2023
10 deficiencies
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, resident and staff interviews and clinical record review the facility failed to provide accurate and time...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Grievances
(Tag F0585)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based observation, clinical record review, resident and staff interviews the facility failed to follow grievance procedures to e...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0658
(Tag F0658)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, clinical record review, and staff interviews the facility failed to notify the physician of weight gain ou...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interviews and clinical record review the facility failed to ensure the safety of the residents by f...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0730
(Tag F0730)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on personnel record review, staff interview, and facility policy review the facility failed to complete an employee performance review at least once every 12 months. The facility reported a cens...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0801
(Tag F0801)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on document review, policy review, and staff interview the facility failed to employ a clinically qualified nutrition professional by not having a certified dietary manager. The facility reporte...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Menu Adequacy
(Tag F0803)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on facility menu review, observations and staff interviews the facility failed to serve meals according to the menu. Staff failed to serve bread and butter to all of the residents during the lun...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations, facility policy review and staff interviews the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards by not labeling foods that were open with open dates and ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Garbage Disposal
(Tag F0814)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations, staff interviews and facility policy review the facility failed to properly dispose of room trays with left-over food in a timely manner. In two separate observations it was dis...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 observations and staff interviews the facility failed to provide appropriate infection prevention practices by not providing separation between clean and dirty linen in the laundry department...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2022
5 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0625
(Tag F0625)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview, clinical record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff provided a bed hold notice to 1 of 3 residents (or their responsible person) reviewed when t...
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
Based on clinical record and staff interview, the facility failed to update the care plan to include high risk medications for 1 of 12 residents reviewed (Resident #35). The facility reported a census...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0698
(Tag F0698)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record and staff interview, the facility failed to complete required dialysis assessments for 1 of 1 residents...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure staff completed hand hygiene during medication administration. The facility reported a census of 36 residents....
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations and staff interviews the facility failed to ensure food was stored under sanitary conditions. The facility identified a census of 36 residents.
Findings include:
1. An initial ki...
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), 1 harm violation(s), Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 27 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • Grade F (4/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
- • 60% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
About This Facility
What is Accura Healthcare Of Shenandoah's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns Accura Healthcare of Shenandoah an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much below average nationally. Within Iowa, 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 Accura Healthcare Of Shenandoah Staffed?
CMS rates Accura Healthcare of Shenandoah's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 60%, which is 14 percentage points above the Iowa average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 83%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.
What Have Inspectors Found at Accura Healthcare Of Shenandoah?
State health inspectors documented 27 deficiencies at Accura Healthcare of Shenandoah during 2022 to 2025. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 1 that caused actual resident harm, and 24 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 Accura Healthcare Of Shenandoah?
Accura Healthcare of Shenandoah is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by ACCURA HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 42 certified beds and approximately 36 residents (about 86% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in Shenandoah, Iowa.
How Does Accura Healthcare Of Shenandoah Compare to Other Iowa Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Iowa, Accura Healthcare of Shenandoah's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (60%) 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 Accura Healthcare Of Shenandoah?
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 you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations, the facility's high staff turnover rate, and the below-average staffing rating.
Is Accura Healthcare Of Shenandoah Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, Accura Healthcare of Shenandoah 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 1-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Iowa. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.
Do Nurses at Accura Healthcare Of Shenandoah Stick Around?
Staff turnover at Accura Healthcare of Shenandoah is high. At 60%, the facility is 14 percentage points above the Iowa average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 83%. 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 Accura Healthcare Of Shenandoah Ever Fined?
Accura Healthcare of Shenandoah has been fined $8,414 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Iowa average of $33,163. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.
Is Accura Healthcare Of Shenandoah on Any Federal Watch List?
Accura Healthcare of Shenandoah 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.