The Arbour At Westminster Manor

Location & what’s nearby

Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗

Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.

Quality measures — how residents actually fare

Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.

Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital

Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.

47.0% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 148 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 80.5% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 128 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.

Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.42 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 71% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 12% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.

This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.

Staffing

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 90 beds and averages 81.0 residents a day — about 90% occupied, or roughly 9 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.96 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.60 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.43 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.

Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 4.46 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.17 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.63 to 0.52 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 40% is about the same as the national median of 45%.

Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.

Inspection trend

Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.

Inspection deficiencies

State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.

Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.

• Immediate jeopardy · J2024-09-25 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolated
  Protect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure the resident had the right to be free from abuse for one resident (Resident #44) of six residents reviewed for freedom from abuse. The facility failed to protect Resident #44 from an aggressive family member with suspected history of abuse. On 08/03/2024 at about 6:30pm, during the dinner, the family member shouted at Resident #44 and forcefully fed her against her will by putting the spoon with food in her mouth, as witnessed by staff members. On 09/24/24 at 4:36 PM an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was identified. While the IJ was removed on 09/25/24, the facility remained out of compliance at a scope of isolated and a severity J level of potential for more than minimal harm due to the facility continuing to monitor the implementation and effectiveness of their Plan of Removal. This failure placed the residents at risk for mental and physical harm. Findings included: Review of Resident #44's face sheet dated 09/12/24 reflected,…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2025-12-03 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — pattern
  Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observation, interviews, and record review the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for one of one kitchen reviewed for kitchen sanitation. The facility failed to seal the food in the freezer. The facility failed to ensure that items were labeled and dated in the freezer. These failures could place residents at risk for consuming contaminated food and developing foodborne illnesses. An observation made on 12/01/2025 at 9:00 AM, of the walk-in freezer revealed food boxes stored on top of crates, unlabeled unidentified food items, and there was food opened in a bag that was not sealed, and the food was exposed to the air. An observation made on 12/01/2025 at 1:30 PM, revealed a variety of packaged food was still on the crate inside the walk-in freezer. An observation made on 12/02/2025 at 10:40 AM, revealed new unidentified food boxes inside the walk-in refrigerator on the floor and walk in freezer on the floor. During the observation, the opened unlabeled food items were still opened…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-12-03 · tag F0641 — isolated
  Ensure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure assessments accurately reflected the resident's status for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #25) reviewed for accuracy of assessments. The facility failed to ensure Resident #25's MDS assessments date 10/01/2025 reflected his contractures on both his hands. This failure could place residents at risk of inadequate care due to an inaccurate MDS assessment. Findings include:Record review of Resident #25's face sheet, dated 12/02/2025, revealed a [AGE] year-old male who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #25 had a diagnoses including dementia (memory, thinking, difficulty), anxiety (feeling of uneasiness or worry), hypertension (high blood pressure), gout (swollen arthritis), hyperlipidemia (high cholesterol), and depression (persistent feeling of sadness). Record review of Resident #25's quarterly MDS dated [DATE], revealed Resident #25 had a BIMS of 99 indicated unable to complete the interview. The MDS also revealed that Resident #25 was…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2024-09-25 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolated
  Reasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents had the right to receive services in the facility with reasonable accommodation of the resident's needs and preferences for 1 of 8 residents (Resident #59) reviewed for accommodation of needs. The facility failed to ensure Resident #59's call light button was within her reach to call for nursing assistance. This failure placed residents at risk of having their needs gone unmet. Findings included: Record review or Resident #59's AR, dated 9/10/2024, reflected a [AGE] year-old female, born on [DATE], who admitted to the facility on [DATE]. She was diagnosed with Fracture of T-11-T12 Vertebra (which was a fracture in the lower spine,) Fracture of Sacrum (which was a fracture of the large triangle shaped bone at the bottom of the spine,) and Repeated Falls (which was a medical code, utilized in diagnosing, to describe numerous past falls and future risk of falls.) Record review of Resident #59's admission MDS, dated [DATE],…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2024-09-25 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
  Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews and record review the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with the residents that included measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that were identified in the comprehensive assessment for 2 of 10 Residents (Resident #43 and Resident #44) reviewed for care plans. Resident #43 The facility failed to ensure: 1. Resident #43's legs were elevated while sitting or sleeping. 2. Resident #43 wore her compression stockings. 2. Resident #43's door remained open, except when receiving care. Resident #44 The facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan that included interventions to ensure safety of Resident # 44 from the visitor's aggressive, physical, and verbal behaviors. This failure could place residents at risk of continued abuse, and not reaching their highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. Findings included: Resident…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2023-07-21 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — pattern
  Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an Infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable disease and infection for 1 of 2 wings (East wing) on the second floor of the facility reviewed for infection control, in that: Laundry staff C did not sanitize her hands between residents' room. This deficient practice could place residents at-risk for infection due to improper care practices. The findings include: Observation on 07/18/2023 at 1:12 p.m. revealed Laundry staff C, on the second Eastside wing was passing clean clothing to the residents' room. Laundry staff C was observed going to 3 different rooms, placing clothing in closets and drawers, without practicing hand hygiene. Interview with Laundry staff C, on 07/18/2023 at 1:18 p.m., Laundry staff C confirmed she did not sanitize her hands. Laundry staff C stated she had received infection control and hand hygiene training. Interview with the DON, on 07/20/2023 on…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2023-07-21 · tag F0636 — isolated
  Assess the resident completely in a timely manner when first admitted, and then periodically, at least every 12 months.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on interview and record review, the facility failed conduct initially and periodically a comprehensive, accurate, standardized reproducible assessment of each resident's functional capacity within 14 days calendar days after admission, excluding readmissions in which there is no significant change in the resident's physical or mental condition for 1 of 16 resident (Resident #61) reviewed for Comprehensive Assessments and timing. The facility failed to ensure an MDS Assessment for Resident #61 was completed within 14 days after admission. This failure could place residents at risk for improper or incorrect care and services necessary for their physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. Findings include: Record review of Resident #61's face sheet dated 07/21/2023, revealed an admission date of 06/21/2023, Record review of Resident #61's medical record revealed that as of 07/18/2023, no admission assessment MDS had been completed. Section A of the MDS assessment was still showing as incompleted. Interview with MDS Coordinator B on 07/21/23 at 11:40 a.m. revealed the time…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-07-21 · tag F0641 — isolated
  Ensure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to complete an assessment which accurately reflected the resident's status for 1 of 18 (Resident #33) residents reviewed, in that: Resident #33's quarterly MDS assessment inaccurately documented 2 administrations of insulin which did not occur. This failure could result in inadequate care due to an inaccurate assessment of his medication administrations. The findings were: Record review of Resident #33's face sheet, dated 07/19/2023, revealed the male resident, aged [AGE] year, was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including: type 2 diabetes mellitus with hyperglycemia (a condition that occurs with elevated blood sugar levels), anxiety disorder unspecified (a condition in which feelings of worry and fear interfere with daily activities), and peripheral vascular disease unspecified (a condition in which narrowed blood vessels reduce blood flow to the limbs). Record review of Resident #33's Quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], revealed a BIMS score…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.

Fines & penalties

$29,085 in federal fines across 1 penalty.

• $29,085 — penalty dated 2024-09-25

Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to LIFE CARE SERVICES — 43 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →

A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.

Who owns this facility

CMS files one row per role, so the 28 rows in the source record cover these 23 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

2 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.

Follow the money — this home’s finances

Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.

Cost & finances

Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.

What families pay in TX