WESTMINSTER VILLAGE HEALTH
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Westminster Village Health in Dover, Delaware has a Trust Grade of C+, indicating it is decent and slightly above average compared to other facilities. Ranking #10 out of 43 nursing homes in Delaware places it in the top half, while being #2 out of 7 in Kent County means only one other local option is rated higher. The facility is showing an improving trend, with issues decreasing from 11 in 2023 to 9 in 2024. Staffing is a strong point, rated 5/5 stars, with a turnover rate of 31% that is below the state average, indicating that staff are familiar with the residents. However, there are concerning incidents reported, including a critical failure to protect residents from sexual abuse by another resident with a history of inappropriate behavior, as well as a serious incident where a resident suffered a broken neck due to inadequate supervision. While the home shows strengths in staffing and overall ratings, these serious incidents highlight significant areas that need urgent attention.
- Trust Score
- C+
- In Delaware
- #10/43
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 31% turnover. Near Delaware's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $15,593 in fines. Lower than most Delaware facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 68 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than 97% of Delaware nursing homes. RNs are the most trained staff who catch health problems before they become serious.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 27 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (31%)
17 points below Delaware average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.
The Bad
15pts below Delaware avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 27 deficiencies on record
Oct 2024
7 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interviews, it was determined for three (R16, R32, and R217) out of eighteen residents in the investigative sample, the facility failed to ensure the MDS was accurate. Findi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, it was determined that for one (R37) out of eighteen residents reviewed in the investigative sample, the facility failed to ensure that the required interdiscipli...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
2. Review of R27's clinical record revealed:
12/5/22 - R27 was admitted to the facility.
12/21/22 - A physician's order was written for midodrine HCL 2.5 mg one tablet by mouth three times a day befor...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Incontinence Care
(Tag F0690)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined that for two (R21 and R37) out of two residents reviewed for incontinence, the facility failed to provide services to restore bowel ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Menu Adequacy
(Tag F0803)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation and interviews, it was determined that for one (R47) out of eight residents sampled for food the facility failed to follow menu requests. Findings include:
10/21/24 10:11 AM - A r...
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 observation and interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure food was stored, prepared, and served in a manner that prevents food borne illness to the residents. Findings in...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Drug Regimen Review
(Tag F0756)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
Based on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to develop policies and procedures for the monthly MRR (Medication Regimen Review) that included time frames for differ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2024
2 deficiencies
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
Abuse Prevention Policies
(Tag F0607)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, it was determined that for one (R1) out of three residents reviewed for Abuse, the facili...
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
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, it was determined that for two (R1, R3) out of three residents reviewed for Abuse, the fa...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2023
11 deficiencies
1 IJ
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 observation, interview and record review, it was determined that for three (R71, R68 and R43) out of six residents revi...
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
Based on record review and interview, it was determined that for one (R5) out of forty (40) sampled residents for resident assessment, the facility failed to accurately assess an unstageable pressure ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
PASARR Coordination
(Tag F0644)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of R10's clinical record revealed:
6/23/22 - Review of R10's PASARR Level I screen outcome documented . 1. No level II...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review it was determined that for two (R5 and R36) out two residents reviewed for pressure ulcers (PU), the facility failed to provide necessary treatment and services to...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0688
(Tag F0688)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that for one (R57) out of three residents reviewed for range of motion, the facility failed to ensure R57 received services to maintain function...
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
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, it was determined that for one (R368) out of six residents reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision during a mechanical lift tr...
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
Incontinence Care
(Tag F0690)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview it was determined that for one (R56) out of one resident reviewed for incontinence the facility failed to respond to or provide services to restore bladder contine...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0730
(Tag F0730)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and review of facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a performance review was completed at least every 12 months for three (E8, E9 and E10...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that medications were stored and labeled properly in two out of three medication carts reviewed. Finding's incl...
Read full inspector narrative →
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
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation and interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure safe, sanitary storage of food and maintain food preparation equipment in a sanitary and safe operating conditio...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
📢 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
Drug Regimen Review
(Tag F0756)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
3. May 2018 - A review of the facility's policy titled Consultant Pharmacist Services Provider Requirements, lacked information of the facility's time frame to respond to the pharmacy recommendations ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2021
7 deficiencies
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review, interview, observation and review of other facility documentation, it was determined, for one (R19) out of four residents sampled for accidents, that the facility failed to ens...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on random facility observations it was determined that the facility failed to provide a clean and homelike environment in ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review, observation and interview, it was determined that, for two (R1 and R19) out of four residents sampled for bladder and bowel incontinence, the facility failed to provide inconti...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0679
(Tag F0679)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
2. Review of 45's clinical record revealed:
8/4/21 - R45 was admitted to the facility with dementia.
10/28/21 - R45's activity care plan included: Present interest: watching tv (television) like Weste...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
2. Review of R25's clinical record revealed:
4/13/2020 - A facility wound care prevention policy (last revised 4/13/2020) included: Float heels to prevent any further pressure.
8/3/21 - R25 was admitt...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Incontinence Care
(Tag F0690)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined that, for two (R19 and R48) out of four residents sampled for bowel and bladder incontinence, the facility failed to assess and pro...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, it was determined that, for one (R19) out of four residents sampled for accidents, the facility failed to ensure records were accurate, complete and recorded time...
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?"
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • 31% turnover. Below Delaware's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s), 1 harm violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 27 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $15,593 in fines. Above average for Delaware. Some compliance problems on record.
About This Facility
What is Westminster Village Health's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns WESTMINSTER VILLAGE HEALTH an overall rating of 5 out of 5 stars, which is considered much above average nationally. Within Delaware, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.
How is Westminster Village Health Staffed?
CMS rates WESTMINSTER VILLAGE HEALTH's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 31%, compared to the Delaware average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Westminster Village Health?
State health inspectors documented 27 deficiencies at WESTMINSTER VILLAGE HEALTH during 2021 to 2024. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 1 that caused actual resident harm, 24 with potential for harm, and 1 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.
Who Owns and Operates Westminster Village Health?
WESTMINSTER VILLAGE HEALTH is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility is operated by PRESBYTERIAN SENIOR LIVING, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 75 certified beds and approximately 65 residents (about 87% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in DOVER, Delaware.
How Does Westminster Village Health Compare to Other Delaware Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Delaware, WESTMINSTER VILLAGE HEALTH's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.3, staff turnover (31%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Westminster Village Health?
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?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations.
Is Westminster Village Health Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, WESTMINSTER VILLAGE HEALTH has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 5-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Delaware. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.
Do Nurses at Westminster Village Health Stick Around?
WESTMINSTER VILLAGE HEALTH has a staff turnover rate of 31%, which is about average for Delaware nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.
Was Westminster Village Health Ever Fined?
WESTMINSTER VILLAGE HEALTH has been fined $15,593 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Delaware average of $33,235. 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 Westminster Village Health on Any Federal Watch List?
WESTMINSTER VILLAGE HEALTH 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.