560 St. Charles Ave, Ne, Atlanta, GA 30308 · Fulton County · (404) 874-2233
90 certified beds, about 77 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 2001
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 115674 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on May 22, 2025, inspectors cited 17 health deficiencies (the Georgia average is 5, the national average 9.2).
None of its 35 health citations since June 2022 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy.
CMS lists 2 fines totaling $23,472 in the last three years; the largest was $13,674, and the latest is dated January 22, 2024.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.65 hours per resident per day, against 3.56 across Georgia and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.56 of those hours.
61.4% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Georgia average 46.0%).
CMS links it to Wellington Health Care Services, an affiliated group of 14 nursing homes.
Federal rules call for a standard inspection at least every 15 months, plus a visit whenever a complaint is filed. Each mark below is one citation, colored by how serious inspectors rated it. How to read a citation.
Under each citation, the quoted text is the inspector's own summary from the federal statement of deficiencies (CMS form 2567), word for word apart from a privacy scrub; CMS removes residents' and staff names before it publishes the text. The full notes are on Medicare.gov.
CMS rates every citation by how much harm it caused (rows) and how many residents it touched (columns). The count in each box is this home's, across all 35 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, facility policy review, and resident, resident family, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure four of eight residents (Residents (R) 17, 43, 136, and 188) reviewed for abuse out of 46 sampled residents were free from abuse. This had the potential and/or physical harm to the residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on resident and staff interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents received proper treatment and services to maintain vision and hearing abilities for one of two residents reviewed for communication (Resident (R) 22) out of 46 sampled residents. The failure to ensure communication deficits were properly assessed and managed placed the facility residents at risk of social isolation.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, resident and staff interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents were treated with respect and dignity for four of 10 residents (Resident (R) 59, R287, R10, and R86) and failed to ensure a resident (R36) needing assistance with meals was assisted by staff sitting down, and failed to ensure a resident (R18) had their choice honored to receive medications by gastrostomy tube (G-Tube) out of 32 residents reviewed in the sample. As a result of this deficient practice the residents may negatively respond emotionally or may be triggered by past experiences to staff yelling/swearing. Residents may not feel respected or honored by staff hovering over residents while assisting with eating and not feeling valued when medication administration choices were not honored.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure risk versus benefits were provided to the resident and/or the resident representative for one of six residents (Resident (R) 336) reviewed for unnecessary medications of 32 sample residents. This failure had the potential to affect the residents and/or representative medication knowledge.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, facility policy review, and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents' call light was within reach for one of one resident (Resident (R)136) reviewed for accommodation of needs. This failure placed the resident at risk of functionality not being maintained due to severe physical limitations, dignity, and well-being in accordance with his own needs and preferences, the resident could potentially not be able to call for assistance when needed.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interviews, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to ensure their primary system for identifying a resident's code status accurately reflected the resident's end of life wishes for two of 46 sampled residents (Resident (R) 9 and R43) reviewed for code status. This failure placed the residents at risk for their wishes not to be honored, risk of there being a delay in treatment, and death.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure monitoring of psychotropic medication side effects was conducted for one of six residents (Resident (R) 336) reviewed for unnecessary medications of 46 sample residents. This failure had the potential to result in an excess of medication provided to the residents resulting in oversedation.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, resident and staff interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure all allegations of abuse and neglect were reported immediately but not later than two hours after the allegation for two of eight residents reviewed for abuse and/or neglect (Resident (R) 136 and R188) out of 46 sampled residents. This failure placed all residents of the facility at risk for further abuse and/or neglect.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to conduct a thorough investigation for incidents of potential abuse for three of nine residents (Resident (R) 136, R188, and R189) reviewed out of 28 sampled residents, for potential staff-to-resident abuse for R136 and R188, and visitor-to-resident abuse for R189. The failure to investigate potential allegations of abuse for facility residents placed all residents at risk of abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a complete discharge summary was provided to the resident and/ or resident representative (RP) for one of three residents (Resident (R) 338) reviewed for discharges of 46 sample residents. This failure had the potential to affect the residents and/or representatives' knowledge of the residents' discharge plan.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, staff interviews, and review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual, the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment was accurate for two of 46 sampled residents (Resident (R) 9 and R18). Failure to code the MDS correctly regarding R18's feeding tube, and R9 for hospice care, could lead to inaccurate assessment and care planning of the resident.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, resident and staff interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure care plans were comprehensively developed for two of 46 sampled residents (Resident (R) 18 and R52) reviewed for care plans. This deficient practice placed the residents at risk for unmet care needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, resident and staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure timely medication administration for one of seven residents (Resident (R) 286) reviewed for medication administration of 46 sample residents. The facility further failed to ensure physician orders were followed for the administration of medications using the gastrostomy (G-Tube) for one of six residents (Resident (R) 18). This had the potential for creating anxiety to the resident and possible medication administration errors or choking.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, staff interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents with a urinary catheter bag were properly positioned in a manner to prevent potential urinary tract infections due to contamination for one of three residents (Resident (R)10) reviewed for urinary catheters out of a total sample of 46 residents. The failure to ensure catheter bags were properly positioned placed the resident at risk of infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, staff interviews, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident with side rails was assessed for entrapment, evaluated for need, informed of the risks/benefits, and failed to obtain a physician's order for side rail use for one of one residents (Resident (R) 20) reviewed for side rails out of a total sample of 46 residents in the sample. This had the potential for safety risks to the resident.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interviews, record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure residents reviewed for verbal and physical abuse had accurate documentation of the abuse incidents in the resident record for one of nine residents (Resident (R) 189) reviewed for abuse out of a total of 46 resident in the sample. The deficient practice had the potential for facility residents to not be identified for potential incidents of abuse, which could affect physical and psychosocial well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, staff interview, document review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to post completed up-to-date and current nurse staffing information to include the current date, and the total number and actual hours worked by the following categories of licensed and unlicensed nursing staff to include Registered Nurses (RNs), Licensed Practical Nurses (LPNs), and Certified Nurse Aides (CNAs). This had the potential to affect all 83 residents residing in the facility. By not having current and up-to-date information posted it is unclear how many staff were available to care for the number of residents in the facility each day.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interview, and review of the facility policy titled, Fall Prevention Protocol Policy, the facility failed to adequately supervise, accurately evaluate and identify risk, analyze recurrent falls, and implement new interventions for one of three residents (R) (R2) reviewed for falls. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure fall interventions were implemented for R2 after having two documented fall incidents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and review of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines, the facility failed to offer or provide documentation of consent or refusal for three of five residents (Residents (R)3, R50, and R34) of 22 sample residents reviewed for pneumonia vaccinations and/or their representatives, the opportunity for the residents to be vaccinated in accordance with nationally recognized standards.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility policy titled, Facility Abuse Prevention, the facility failed to prevent resident to resident abuse on 7/04/2023, 9/03/2023, and 10/19/2023 for four of four residents (Resident (R) 43, R58, R22, and R24) of 22 sample residents from R50 resulting in a minor scratch injury to R43's face on 9/06/2023 and a skin tear to R58's right hand on 10/19/2023.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility policy titled, Abuse Prevention Policy, the facility failed to report an allegation of abuse to the state agency for one of eight residents (Resident (R) 54) of 22 sample residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interviews, record review, facility document review, and review of the facility policy titled, Abuse Prevention Policy, the facility failed to thoroughly investigate an allegation of abuse for one of eight residents (Resident (R) 54) reviewed for abuse of 22 sample residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and review of the facility policy titled, Notice Before Discharge, and Transfer, the facility failed to notify the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman of the hospital transfers. for one of one resident (Resident (R) 81) of 22 sample residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility policy titled, Care Plan Policy, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan for two of two residents (Resident (R) 27 and R29) of 22 sample residents reviewed for care plans.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, record review, and review of the facility policy titled, Facility Care Plan Policy, the facility failed to review and revise care plan interventions for one of two residents (Resident (R) 60) reviewed for care plans of 22 sample residents. This failure had the potential to delay appropriate interventions for care needs and safety concerns.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility policy titled, Administration of Medications, the facility failed to administer a physician ordered antibiotic medication for one of one resident (Resident (R) 79) of 22 sample residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interviews, record review, facility document review, and review of the facility policy titled, Dialysis, Care of the Resident Receiving Dialysis Treatments, the facility failed to have ongoing communication and collaboration with the dialysis center for one of one resident (Resident (R) 3) reviewed for dialysis out of 22 sample residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interview record review and, the facility failed to ensure the monthly review of drug regimens were completed by a licensed pharmacist for two of two residents (Resident (R) 29 and R50) reviewed for monthly regimen review of 22 sample residents. This failure has the potential to impact the residents' health and wellness.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility policy titled, Administration of Medication, the facility failed to ensure the medication error rate was less than five percent for two of seven residents (Resident (R) 41 and (R)235) resulting from eight errors out of 29 opportunities for a medication error rate of 27.59 percent.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to store physician ordered medications in a locked compartment for one of one resident (Resident (R)234), failed to discard medications that were not administrated for one of one resident (R10), and failed to discard expired medications located in the refrigerator on the Memory Care Unit.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interviews, record review, and facility's document review, the facility failed to implement the communication process, including how the communication would be documented between the facility and the hospice provider to ensure one of one resident (Resident (R) 49) needs were met and addressed of 22 sample residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interview, and review of facility policy titled, Infection Prevention and Control Program Overview, the facility failed to maintain an effective infection prevention and control program that demonstrated ongoing surveillance, recognition, investigation, and control of infection to prevent the onset and spread of infection. The facility census was 72 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, and review of the facility policy titled, Antibiotic Stewardship, the facility failed to ensure it developed and implemented an Antibiotic Stewardship Program to include antibiotic use protocols and a system to monitor antibiotic use. This had the potential to affect all 72 residents who reside in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, record reviews, and facility policy titled, Facility Testing requirements for Staff and Residents. The facility failed to produce evidence of testing of residents and staff for the COVID-19 virus based on recommendations from the Centers of Disease Control (CDC), the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) and the level of community transmission rates. The facility did not maintain testing logs or line listing forms for the residents or staff. The facility census was 72 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, record reviews and reviews of the facility policy titled Documentation Policy the facility failed to ensure licensed nursing staff accurately documented daily wound care for two (2) of six (6) residents (R) (R#50 and R#58) reviewed for pressure related wounds.
2 fire safety citations on file: 2 on January 19, 2024.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| January 22, 2024 | Fine | $13,674 |
| December 26, 2023 | Fine | $9,798 |
A payment denial means Medicare and Medicaid stopped paying for new admissions for that period.
Hours of care per resident per day, from the payroll records every home sends CMS. Higher means more staff time with each resident.
| Measure | This home | Georgia | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 3.65 | 3.56 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.56 | 0.50 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.07 | 3.10 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.30 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.80 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 61.4% | 46.0% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 44.4% | 44.5% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.60 hours a day for residents as sick as this home's (its case-mix figure). The staffing star compares the two.
Every nursing home sends CMS its staff hours for each day (the Payroll Based Journal). Here they are added up by quarter. The latest quarter is the one behind the figures above. In January to March 2026, nursing staff hours per resident were 3.89 on weekdays and 3.07 on weekends, 21% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 5.8% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.24 in April to June 2025 to 3.65 in January to March 2026.
| Quarter | All nursing staff | Registered nurses | Weekdays | Weekends | Contract staff share | Days with no RN hours | Residents a day |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.65 | 0.56 | 3.89 | 3.07 | 5.8% | 0 of 90 | 77 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.12 | 0.46 | 3.29 | 2.68 | 2.2% | 0 of 92 | 81 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.25 | 0.49 | 3.43 | 2.79 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 81 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.24 | 0.40 | 3.43 | 2.75 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 83 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Georgia, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.50 | 0.46 | 3.68 | 3.03 | 3.3% | 0.6% of days |
Hours per resident per day: staff hours in the quarter divided by resident days (the daily census CMS derives from resident assessments). Registered nurses include the director of nursing and RNs with administrative duties; aides include nurse aides in training and medication aides, as in CMS's own staffing measure. How these are calculated.
Staff pay reports
No staff pay figure for this home has passed review yet. A figure appears only after at least 5 reports from at least 3 different people, sent over at least 60 days, have passed review. If you work here, your report helps start one.
| Job | Median | Middle half | Employed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Georgia, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $18.12 | $17.06 to $20.66 | 43,440 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $29.82 | $25.43 to $33.99 | 21,060 |
| Registered nurses | $44.98 | $38.02 to $51.12 | 100,950 |
| United States, nursing care facilities | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $20.67 | $17.91 to $22.55 | 534,270 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $33.86 | $30.05 to $37.40 | 188,210 |
| Registered nurses | $41.11 | $37.85 to $47.68 | 142,270 |
Hourly wages; the middle half runs from the 25th to the 75th percentile. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, May 2025. BLS has no separate estimate for medication aides. These are survey estimates for whole occupations, not figures for any one home.
The measures CMS uses for the quality star. Lower is better for every one of them.
| Measure | This home | Georgia | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 9.5 | 15.3 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.7 | 2.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.0 | 3.2 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 2.6 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 7.7 | 15.2 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.4 | 5.6 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 27.5 | 19.9 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 31.6 | 25.0 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 21.3 | 11.6 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.2 | 2.1 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.2 | 1.9 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Westminster Commons's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (45.7% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
45.7% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · Georgia: 49 better, 27 worse
Rate of successful return to home or community from a SNF (risk-standardized discharge to community rate). Higher is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 42 eligible stays.
11.4% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Georgia: 2 better, 17 worse
Rate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 50 eligible stays.
7.1% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 7.1% · Georgia: 0 better, 8 worse
Percentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2023 to September 2024. 26 eligible stays.
41.4% this home
Median of homes: Georgia46.9% · US 56.6%
Percentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 29 residents counted.
1.9% this home
Median of homes: Georgia0.4% · US 0.0%
Percentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay. Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 53 residents counted.
0.0% this home
Median of homes: Georgia2.2% · US 1.7%
Percentage of residents with pressure ulcers or pressure injuries that are new or worsened (adjusted rate). Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 53 residents counted.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Median of homes: Georgia97.4% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 6 residents counted.
Source: CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program - Provider Data, released 2026-09-30. Better, no different and worse are CMS's own comparisons with the national rate, after adjusting for how sick residents were. Medians of homes and the state counts are worked out by us from the same file.
Legal business name: FACILITY INVESTMENTS LP. CMS links this home to Wellington Health Care Services, a group of 14 nursing homes averaging 1.9 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wellington Healthcare Services LP | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 07/31/2007 |
| Andwell Investments, LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 01/10/2012 | |
| Andrews, James | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 01/10/2012 | |
| Bailey, Teresa | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 07/01/2023 | |
| Andrews, James | Corporate director | Individual | 07/31/2014 | |
| Andrews, James | Corporate officer | Individual | 07/03/2007 | |
| Kelman, Moshe | Corporate officer | Individual | 07/01/2023 | |
| Andrews, James | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 07/30/2007 | |
| Elkins Road Associates LLC | General partnership interest | Organization | 07/31/2007 | |
| Wellington Healthcare Services LP | Limited partnership interest | Organization | 07/31/2007 |
As listed in the CMS ownership file, which names owners with a 5% or greater stake and the people and companies with operational or managerial control.
Chosen from this home's own inspection record.
These are the official offices in Georgia. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.