Above average — CMS composite of the measures below.
The next survey window likely opens around November 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 The Arbour At Westminster Manor during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
Improper Food Storage and Labeling in Kitchen: A kitchen sanitation review found food boxes stored on crates and the floor, unidentified items in the walk-in freezer and refrigerator, and opened food left unsealed and exposed to the air. Interviews with the DM, CK A, SC, DON, and ADM showed inconsistent understanding of food storage practices, while facility policy stated food should be stored upon delivery, kept off the floor, and covered, labeled, and dated.
A resident’s MDS did not accurately reflect bilateral hand contractures and upper-extremity ROM impairment. Record review showed the resident had dementia, was dependent for multiple ADLs, and had care plan and restorative documentation noting bilateral hand rolls for hand contractures and impaired ROM on both sides. The MDS nurse and DON stated the contractures should have been coded on the MDS, while the ADM said they did not need to be included because the resident was dependent for ADLs.
A resident was subjected to abuse by a family member during a visit, despite the facility's awareness of the family member's abusive history. The care plan did not include the structured visit plan, leading to staff being unaware of visitation restrictions. This resulted in the resident being exposed to potential harm, as staff were not adequately informed or trained on the necessary supervision during visits.
A resident with moderate cognitive impairment and mobility issues was unable to reach her call light, which was not placed within her reach as required by facility policy. This oversight was confirmed by staff interviews and placed the resident at risk of unmet needs.
The facility failed to implement comprehensive care plans for two residents, leading to deficiencies in their care. One resident with PVD and Parkinson's Disease did not receive necessary interventions like leg elevation and compression stockings, while another resident's care plan did not address safety measures for visits from a family member with a history of abuse. Staff were unaware of these care needs, compromising the residents' safety and well-being.
Improper Food Storage and Labeling in Kitchen
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in one kitchen reviewed for sanitation. During an observation on 12/01/2025 at 9:00 AM, the walk-in freezer contained food boxes stored on top of crates, unlabeled unidentified food items, and opened food in a bag that was not sealed and was exposed to the air. A later observation on 12/01/2025 at 1:30 PM found a variety of packaged food still on the crate inside the walk-in freezer. On 12/02/2025 at 10:40 AM, new unidentified food boxes were observed inside the walk-in refrigerator on the floor and in the walk-in freezer on the floor, and the opened unlabeled food items remained open inside the freezer. Interviews with the DM, CK A, SC, DON, and ADM showed differing statements about food storage practices, including that food should be labeled and dated after opening, stored in containers if needed, kept off the floor, and closed when not in use. Facility policy documents stated that food should be stored upon delivery, stored off the floor, and covered, labeled, and dated.
Inaccurate MDS Did Not Reflect Bilateral Hand Contractures
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure Resident #25’s MDS assessments accurately reflected his status. Record review showed the resident was an older male admitted to the facility with diagnoses including dementia, anxiety, hypertension, gout, hyperlipidemia, and depression. His quarterly MDS dated 10/01/2025 indicated he was unable to complete the BIMS interview, was substantial/maximal assist with eating, and was dependent on staff for toileting, dressing, bed mobility, and transfers, but it listed no impairment for functional limitation in range of motion for the upper extremities. Additional record review showed Resident #25’s care plan identified bilateral hand rolls for hand contractures managed by hospice, and his restorative nursing screener/GG evaluation documented impaired upper extremity range of motion on both sides. The RAI guidance reviewed by the facility stated that limited ROM must be coded when it interferes with daily functioning or places the resident at risk for injury, including impairment on both sides when applicable. During interview, the MDS nurse stated that Resident #25’s hand contractures limited his ROM and should have been included on the MDS, but she did not know why they were omitted. The DON also stated that contractures should be on the MDS when they affect ROM and acknowledged that if contractures are not on the MDS, the facility would not capture the care and management for the resident. The ADM stated the contractures did not need to be on the MDS because the resident was dependent for ADLs, which conflicted with the MDS nurse and DON statements and the RAI guidance.
Failure to Protect Resident from Abusive Family Member
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to protect a resident from abuse by an aggressive family member, despite being aware of the family member's history of abusive behavior. The incident occurred during dinner when the family member shouted at the resident and forcefully fed her against her will, as witnessed by staff members. The facility had prior knowledge of the family member's abusive history, as reported by the resident's Power of Attorney (POA) during admission, and Adult Protective Services (APS) had been involved in the past due to domestic violence concerns. The facility's care plan for the resident did not incorporate the structured visit plan developed during an interdisciplinary team meeting, which was intended to manage the family member's visits. This omission left staff unaware of the restrictions and supervision required during the family member's visits. Interviews with staff revealed a lack of awareness about the care plan and the specific visitation restrictions, leading to the family member being allowed to visit the resident in her room, contrary to the intended plan. The facility's failure to implement and communicate the care plan effectively resulted in the resident being exposed to potential harm. Staff members were not adequately informed or trained on the visitation restrictions, and there was no designated person responsible for supervising the visits. This lack of communication and oversight contributed to the incident of abuse, placing the resident at risk for mental and physical harm.
Failure to Ensure Call Light Accessibility for Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident's call light button was within reach, which is a necessary accommodation for residents to call for nursing assistance. This deficiency was identified for one resident, a 91-year-old female with a history of spinal fractures and repeated falls, who was moderately cognitively impaired and used a wheelchair for mobility. The resident required assistance with various activities of daily living and was frequently incontinent of bladder and always incontinent of bowel. During an observation, the resident was found sitting in her wheelchair, unable to reach her call light button, which was wrapped around the bed's stability bar on the opposite side of her bed. The resident expressed that she could not reach the call light to call for help when needed, which could lead to undignified situations such as toileting accidents or being left in pain without assistance. Interviews with staff, including a CNA and the DON, confirmed that the call light should have been within the resident's reach to prevent unmet needs. The facility's policy, dated October 2010, required that call lights be within easy reach of residents, whether they were in bed or confined to a chair. However, the staff oversight led to the resident's call light being out of reach, which was against the facility's policy and training. This oversight placed the resident at risk of having her needs unmet, as confirmed by interviews with the CNA and the CADM.
Failure to Implement Comprehensive Care Plans for Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for two residents, leading to deficiencies in their care. Resident #43, who has multiple medical conditions including Peripheral Vascular Disease (PVD) and Parkinson's Disease, was not provided with the necessary interventions as outlined in her care plan. Specifically, her legs were not elevated while sitting or sleeping, she was not wearing compression stockings, and her room door was closed when it should have been open for frequent checks due to her inability to use the call light. Observations revealed that staff were unaware of these specific care needs, and the information was not adequately communicated through the Kardex or care plan. Resident #44's care plan failed to address safety interventions related to visits from a family member with a history of abusive behavior. Despite a meeting that established restricted visiting hours and locations to ensure the resident's safety, this plan was not incorporated into the care plan. Staff members were unaware of the restrictions and allowed the family member to visit the resident in her room, contrary to the agreed-upon safety measures. This oversight left the resident vulnerable to potential harm, as staff were not informed of the necessary precautions. The deficiencies in care planning for both residents highlight a lack of communication and implementation of critical interventions necessary for their well-being. The facility's policies and procedures for developing and updating care plans were not effectively followed, resulting in staff being uninformed about essential care requirements. This failure to adhere to established care plans and communicate them to all relevant staff members compromised the residents' safety and care quality.
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 353 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 21 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 Austin
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coral Rehabilitation And Nursing Of Austin | 2.3 mi | ★★★★★ | 52 | 10 |
| Heritage Park Rehabilitation And Skilled Nursing C | 3.5 mi | ★★★★★ | 8 | 1 |
| Sage Park Austin | 3.9 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| Brookdale Westlake Hills | 4 mi | ★★★★★ | 9 | 0 |
| Sedona Trace Health And Wellness Center | 4.6 mi | ★★★★★ | 3 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for The Arbour At Westminster Manor.
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.