ARIA AT MITCHELL MANOR
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Aria at Mitchell Manor has a Trust Grade of D, indicating below-average performance with some significant concerns. It ranks #188 out of 321 nursing homes in Wisconsin, placing it in the bottom half of facilities in the state, and #12 out of 32 in Milwaukee County, meaning only 11 local options are better. The facility's situation is worsening, with issues increasing from 2 in 2024 to 4 in 2025. Staffing is rated at 3 out of 5 stars, showing an average level of staffing with a turnover rate of 44%, which is slightly better than the state average. However, they have concerningly low RN coverage, less than 96% of other facilities, which is critical as RNs can identify issues that CNAs might miss. Recent inspection findings highlighted serious problems, including failure to provide appropriate care for a resident with a pressure injury, leading to hospitalization. Additionally, the facility did not maintain proper infection control practices, risking the spread of diseases, and food safety standards were not met, with expired and unsafe food being served to residents. While there are some strengths, such as average staffing levels, the overall weaknesses and ongoing issues may cause concern for families considering this facility.
- Trust Score
- D
- In Wisconsin
- #188/321
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 44% turnover. Near Wisconsin's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ○ Average
- $15,872 in fines. Higher than 73% of Wisconsin facilities. Some compliance issues.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 29 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Wisconsin. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 20 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (44%)
4 points below Wisconsin average of 48%
Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Below Wisconsin average (3.0)
Below average - review inspection findings carefully
Near Wisconsin 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 20 deficiencies on record
Apr 2025
1 deficiency
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
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation and interview, the facility did not ensure the residents environment was clean, comfortable and homelike for 25 of 25 residents on the 3rd floor.
During the Survey the 3rd floor ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2025
3 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0883
(Tag F0883)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review, the facility did not ensure that each resident is offered a pneumococcal immunization, un...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility did not ensure 5 (R8, R9, R19, R41, and R42) of 5 residents reviewed for hosp...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility did not establish and maintain an infection prevention and co...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2024
1 deficiency
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
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure medications were available in t...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2024
1 deficiency
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
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the Facility did not eliminate accident hazards in the resident environment ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2023
5 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
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
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, the facility did not ensure that residents with a pressure injury or at risk...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility did not ensure residents with non-pressure injuries received tr...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility did not maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment and to help...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility did not ensure food was stored, prepared, or served in accordance with professional standards for food service safety potentially affec...
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
Deficiency F0925
(Tag F0925)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, staff and resident interviews, the facility did not ensure a pest control program effective...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2023
2 deficiencies
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0838
(Tag F0838)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on staff interview and record review, the facility did not update the facility-wide assessment to determine/identify what resources were necessary to provide care for its residents. This had the...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0882
(Tag F0882)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on interviews and review of facility records, the facility did not ensure the Infection Preventionist had completed specialized training in Infection Prevention and Control. This had the potenti...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2023
1 deficiency
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review and review of incident reports, the facility failed to ensure two (Resident (R)1 and R2), of s...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2022
6 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure 2 (R37 and R19) of 2 residents reviewed for ADL ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0692
(Tag F0692)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interviews and record review, the facility did not ensure 1 (R4) of 4 residents reviewed for weight loss maintain...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Unnecessary Medications
(Tag F0759)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility did not ensure medication error rates were not 5 percent or greater.
The facility medication error rate was 7.14%.
Findings include:
T...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0760
(Tag F0760)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review the facility did not ensure residents are free of any significant medication e...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Abuse Prevention Policies
(Tag F0607)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on staff interviews and record review, the facility did not ensure their abuse policy and procedures that prohibit mistreatment, abuse and neglect of residents were implemented for 6 of 8 employ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, record review, and interview the facility did not ensure food was prepared, distributed, and served in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in 1 of 1 se...
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
- • 44% turnover. Below Wisconsin's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 20 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $15,872 in fines. Above average for Wisconsin. Some compliance problems on record.
- • Grade D (41/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Aria At Mitchell Manor's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns ARIA AT MITCHELL MANOR an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered below average nationally. Within Wisconsin, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.
How is Aria At Mitchell Manor Staffed?
CMS rates ARIA AT MITCHELL MANOR's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 44%, compared to the Wisconsin average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Aria At Mitchell Manor?
State health inspectors documented 20 deficiencies at ARIA AT MITCHELL MANOR during 2022 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 19 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.
Who Owns and Operates Aria At Mitchell Manor?
ARIA AT MITCHELL MANOR is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by ARIA HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 50 certified beds and approximately 47 residents (about 94% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in WEST ALLIS, Wisconsin.
How Does Aria At Mitchell Manor Compare to Other Wisconsin Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Wisconsin, ARIA AT MITCHELL MANOR's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (44%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Aria At Mitchell Manor?
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 Aria At Mitchell Manor Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, ARIA AT MITCHELL MANOR 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 2-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Wisconsin. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.
Do Nurses at Aria At Mitchell Manor Stick Around?
ARIA AT MITCHELL MANOR has a staff turnover rate of 44%, which is about average for Wisconsin 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 Aria At Mitchell Manor Ever Fined?
ARIA AT MITCHELL MANOR has been fined $15,872 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Wisconsin average of $33,238. 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 Aria At Mitchell Manor on Any Federal Watch List?
ARIA AT MITCHELL MANOR 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.