Below average — CMS composite of the measures below.
A standard survey is most likely before around September 2026
Estimate from public CMS data, current as of July 2026. Survey timing is at the state agency's discretion.
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Westbury Center Of Mcdonough For Nursing & Healing during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
Administration failed to provide protective oversight and enforce abuse‑prevention policies, allowing an EVS housekeeper to enter resident rooms at unusual times without cleaning supplies and engage in sexual contact with a resident on a locked behavioral unit. The Administrator conducted a biased, leading interview with the involved resident in front of law enforcement, repeatedly framing the encounter as consensual despite the resident’s dementia and memory concerns. Another resident reported feeling uncomfortable when the same staff member entered her room twice while she was dressing, but the SSD did not file a grievance or investigate further. A CNA later reported directly witnessing the EVS housekeeper with his pants down and his penis in a resident’s mouth, and leadership subsequently characterized the incident as consensual while acknowledging such conduct violates the abuse policy.
A cognitively impaired resident with vascular dementia, anxiety, and major depressive disorder, care planned for poor decision-making and need for monitoring, was left vulnerable when an EVS housekeeper entered the resident’s room, closed the door, and remained inside for several minutes. Video footage showed the housekeeper entering the room after previously entering another room without knocking. A CNA later entered and reported seeing the housekeeper standing with his pants down while the resident lay in bed with his penis in her mouth, after which he reacted and fled to the bathroom. In a subsequent police-recorded interview, the resident stated that her mind was gone and that she did not enjoy the encounter, indicating the housekeeper did. These events show the facility failed to protect the resident from sexual abuse by staff.
A cognitively intact resident with anxiety reported to the SSD that an EVS housekeeper had entered her room on two early-morning occasions while she was dressing, which made her feel uncomfortable. Facility policy designates the SSD and Administrator as Grievance Officials and requires that any verbal complaint to staff be documented on a grievance form, investigated, and tracked through resolution, with the resident kept informed. The SSD acknowledged she did not treat the resident’s report as a grievance, did not complete grievance documentation, and did not initiate an investigation, resulting in noncompliance with the facility’s grievance policy and federal requirements.
Multiple residents with cognitive and physical impairments were subjected to physical abuse by peers, including being pushed, struck, and pinned to the floor, resulting in injuries such as a sprained ankle and facial scratches. Staff and medical records confirmed that aggressive behaviors were known and recurring, but interventions such as redirection and care plan updates did not prevent repeated harm. The facility's actions were insufficient to protect vulnerable individuals from abuse, as required by policy.
Multiple residents experienced unclean and poorly maintained living conditions, including dirty floors, damaged bathrooms, malfunctioning toilets, and cluttered shower rooms. Housekeeping was inconsistent, with staff reporting high turnover and heavy workloads, leading to overflowing garbage and lack of basic supplies. Maintenance issues, such as broken fixtures and persistent grime, were not addressed promptly, and common areas were cluttered with equipment, detracting from a homelike environment.
Failure of Administration to Prevent, Recognize, and Properly Investigate Staff‑to‑Resident Sexual Abuse
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility administration’s failure to provide protective oversight and to administer the facility in a manner that effectively prevents abuse, specifically staff‑to‑resident sexual abuse. The Administrator did not ensure appropriate supervision of an Environmental Services (EVS) housekeeper who entered and remained in resident rooms at unusual times without cleaning supplies or a housekeeping cart, causing residents to feel uncomfortable and afraid. The facility’s abuse policy required assigning responsibility for supervision of staff on all shifts to identify inappropriate staff behaviors, and the Administrator’s job description required protecting residents from abuse, ensuring reportable events are reported, and promoting an environment of trust and abuse prevention. Surveyors reviewed a police body‑worn camera recording of an interview conducted by the Administrator with a resident in the presence of a police officer. During this interview, the Administrator used leading and suggestive questions that implied the resident consented to sexual contact with the EVS housekeeper, including asking whether the resident “enjoyed” the act and whether it was something the resident “consent[ed]” to and “like[d]” to happen. The resident, who resided on a locked behavioral unit and referenced memory problems, responded that her “mind is gone” and could not state how long the conduct had been occurring, while also indicating the EVS housekeeper’s penis had been in her mouth several times. The Administrator later stated that this questioning style came from her professional training and that she believed the resident was alert, oriented, and communicating clearly during the interview. The five‑day follow‑up submitted by the facility concluded that staff‑to‑resident sexual contact was substantiated but characterized the incident as consensual and framed the EVS housekeeper’s responsibility as needing to inform administration of the resident’s desire for a sexual encounter. Additional findings showed that another resident on the same locked behavioral unit reported that the same EVS housekeeper had entered her room on two early‑morning occasions while she was dressing, without cleaning supplies, which she found odd and which made her feel uncomfortable; she reported this to the Social Service Director (SSD). The SSD acknowledged that she asked the resident if the EVS housekeeper had touched her, was told no, and did not file a grievance or conduct further investigation. A CNA reported that on the day of the incident she entered the first resident’s room while passing ice water and observed the EVS housekeeper standing with his pants down and his penis in the resident’s mouth; the CNA stated the EVS housekeeper exclaimed and ran into the bathroom, and that video review showed he had been in the room for fifteen minutes with a resident who has dementia. The Regional Director of Operations stated that the resident initiated the contact, that the incident was consensual, and simultaneously acknowledged that an employee receiving fellatio from a resident would violate the abuse policy. These actions and inactions by administration and leadership compromised the integrity of the abuse investigation and minimized the seriousness of staff‑to‑resident sexual abuse.
Failure to Protect Cognitively Impaired Resident From Sexual Abuse by Housekeeping Staff
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to protect a resident from sexual abuse by an Environmental Services (EVS) housekeeper, in violation of its abuse, neglect, and exploitation policy, which prohibits sexual abuse defined as non-consensual sexual contact of any type with a resident. The resident involved had diagnoses including anxiety, major depressive disorder, and vascular dementia, and her most recent MDS assessments showed moderately impaired cognition with poor decision-making skills, need for cueing and reminders, and cognitive loss/dementia as an area of concern. Her care plan identified poor decision-making and required staff monitoring and redirection as needed. On the day of the incident, facility camera footage showed the resident leaving her room briefly and then returning and closing the door, with no further exit observed. Later that afternoon, the EVS housekeeper entered another resident’s room without knocking, then exited and shortly thereafter knocked on the involved resident’s door and entered, closing the door behind him. He remained in the room for approximately 12 minutes before a CNA entered the room while passing ice water. The CNA reported observing the EVS housekeeper standing with his pants down and the resident lying in bed with his penis in her mouth; the CNA stated she gasped, the housekeeper said “Oh shit,” and ran into the bathroom with a “scary look” in his eyes. The facility’s incident report documented that a staff member walked into the resident’s room and observed the staff member with his pants down and it appeared the resident was engaged in oral sex. Review of police body camera footage from the same day captured the resident stating, “My mind is gone,” and telling the Administrator and a police officer, “I am not saying I enjoyed it. He enjoyed it,” and, “It ain’t about me, it is about him.” These observations and statements, combined with the resident’s documented cognitive impairment and need for supervision, demonstrate that the facility did not ensure the resident’s right to be free from sexual assault by facility staff.
Failure to Treat Resident’s Verbal Complaint as a Grievance
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to follow its grievance policy and federal requirements when a resident voiced a concern about staff behavior. The facility’s policy titled “Resident and Family Grievances” states that the Director of Social Services and the Administrator are designated Grievance Officials responsible for overseeing the grievance process, receiving and tracking grievances, leading investigations, maintaining confidentiality, issuing written grievance decisions, and coordinating with state and federal agencies as needed. The policy further specifies that grievances may be voiced verbally to any staff member or Grievance Official, and that the staff member receiving the grievance must record the nature and specifics of the grievance on the designated grievance form or assist the resident in completing the form, take any immediate actions needed to prevent further potential violations of resident rights, and keep the resident apprised of progress toward resolution. Resident 6 was admitted with a diagnosis that included anxiety, and her most recent PPS Part A MDS showed a BIMS score of 15, indicating she was cognitively intact. During an interview, the resident reported that on two occasions an Environmental Services Housekeeper entered her room early in the morning while she was dressing, and that this made her feel uncomfortable; she stated she reported this to the Social Worker. The Social Service Director confirmed that she spoke with the resident, who told her it was odd that the housekeeper had been in her room twice, and when asked, the resident said the staff member had not touched her. The Social Service Director acknowledged that she did not file this concern as a grievance and no further investigation was conducted at that time, resulting in the resident’s verbal complaint not being treated, documented, or investigated as a grievance in accordance with the facility’s policy and federal requirements.
Failure to Protect Residents from Physical Abuse by Peers
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to protect multiple residents from physical abuse by other residents, resulting in both physical and psychosocial harm. One resident with severe neurocognitive disorder and a history of aggressive behaviors physically assaulted several other residents on multiple occasions. In one incident, this resident grabbed another resident by the neck and pushed her, and in another, pushed a resident to the floor, causing a sprained ankle that required an ER visit and immobilization. A third incident involved the same resident dragging another resident out of his room and pinning her to the floor, resulting in visible discoloration and distress. These incidents occurred despite the known behavioral risks and cognitive impairments of both the aggressor and the victims, who were all severely cognitively impaired and prone to wandering into other residents' rooms. Another incident involved a resident with paraplegia and no cognitive impairment who was physically assaulted by his roommate. The aggressor verbally threatened and then struck the resident on the face, causing scratches and distress. The assaulted resident was unable to defend himself due to his physical limitations. Staff observed the injuries and confirmed the account, and the incident was reported to the appropriate authorities. The aggressor denied the physical assault but admitted to a verbal altercation. In all cases, the facility's actions and interventions prior to the incidents were insufficient to prevent the abuse, despite documented behavioral risks and prior aggressive incidents. The facility's policies required the protection of residents from abuse, but the measures in place did not prevent repeated harm to vulnerable residents. Staff interviews confirmed that the aggressive behaviors were known, and interventions such as redirection of wandering residents were inconsistently effective. The facility did not implement increased supervision or one-to-one monitoring for the resident with repeated aggressive incidents, and documentation of efforts to find alternative placement after discharge notices was lacking.
Failure to Maintain Clean, Homelike, and Well-Maintained Environment
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment for multiple residents across several units, as required by its own policy and federal regulations. Observations revealed numerous deficiencies in cleanliness and maintenance, including crumbs and soiling on floors, unclean and damaged bathrooms, toilets that were difficult to flush or not functioning, and cracked or loose toilet seats. Residents reported that housekeeping was inconsistent, with rooms sometimes not cleaned, garbage cans overflowing, and a lack of basic supplies such as toilet paper and paper towels. Maintenance issues, such as clogged toilets and broken shower heads, were not addressed in a timely manner, with some repairs taking weeks to complete. Resident council minutes documented ongoing concerns over several months, including unswept floors, dirty windows, insufficient trash bags, un-mopped floors, malfunctioning lights, and persistent plumbing issues. Observations in various rooms and common areas found dust accumulation on ceiling tiles, water damage, peeling baseboards, soiled and discolored flooring, missing or damaged tiles, mildew, and non-functioning light fixtures. Shower rooms were cluttered with stored equipment, further detracting from the homelike environment and limiting usable space for residents. Interviews with housekeeping staff revealed high turnover and heavy workloads, with each housekeeper responsible for cleaning up to 35 rooms. Staff confirmed that some areas, such as the blackened floors, could not be adequately cleaned with routine methods and required more intensive maintenance. The Maintenance Director and Environmental Services staff verified many of the observed deficiencies and acknowledged that some issues, such as lack of storage space and persistent grime, had not been properly addressed. Residents affected by these deficiencies included individuals with intact cognition as well as those with moderate cognitive impairment and complex medical needs.
What surveyors are citing around you — mapped
All 10 risk areas, ranked with evidence
Repeat citations, what's rising near you, and quality measures — ranked so department heads know exactly where to look first.
Illustrative
What surveyors actually found near you
We read the 171 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 3 immediate-jeopardy cases — and tell you exactly what happened, in plain English, matched to your record.
Resident with a documented fall history left unattended on the patio; found on the ground with a hip fracture.
Walk-in cooler logs missing for 12 days; expired supplements in the medication room fridge.
Illustrative
A prioritized, do-first checklist
Every risk area becomes concrete audit steps drawn from real citations at facilities like yours — run them this week, before your window opens.
Illustrative
Risk indicators are statistical estimates from public CMS data — not predictions, findings, or compliance advice.
Nursing homes near Mcdonough
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pruitthealth - Laurel Park, Llc | 6.3 mi | ★★★★★ | 1 | 0 |
| Jonesboro Center For Nursing And Healing Llc | 10.9 mi | ★★★★★ | 16 | 0 |
| Pruitthealth - Griffin | 13.6 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| Westbury Center Of Jackson For Nursing And Healing | 14.1 mi | ★★★★★ | 2 | 0 |
| Lake City Center For Nursing And Healing Llc | 14.6 mi | ★★★★★ | 15 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Westbury Center Of Mcdonough For Nursing & Healing.
100% money-back within 48 hours.
Trusted data, never guesswork. Every citation, penalty, rating and Plan of Correction on this page is sourced from public CMS records (latest release July 2026) and official state health department websites.