Avante At Orlando INC
2000 North Semoran Boulevard, Orlando, FL 32807 · For profit - Corporation · 118 certified beds · (407) 671-5400 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | Not rated |
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
| Overall quality measures | Not rated |
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.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.5% | 1.4% | better |
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
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.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.69 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 91% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 14% 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.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | not reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | not reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | not reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | not reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | not reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 118 beds and averages 38.7 residents a day — about 33% occupied, or roughly 79 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. 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 4.00 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.90 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.13 is below 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 3.47 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.22 on weekdays — 18% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.09 to 0.44 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
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.
10 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · G2021-10-28 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
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, record review and interview, the facility failed to prevent the development of a new pressure ulcer, and failed to provide care and services to promote healing once it developed for 1 of 2 residents sampled with pressure ulcers in a total sample of 35 residents, (#11). The facility's failure to implement preventative measures consistent with the resident's risk for skin breakdown and failure to implement treatment according to accepted standards of practice resulted in actual harm, development of a Stage III pressure ulcer to the right ear which worsened to a Stage IV pressure ulcer. Findings: Resident #11 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of strokes, dysphagia, aphasia, pain, diabetes mellitus, and malignant tumor of the colon. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] noted the resident was severely impaired for decision making and was totally dependent on 2 staff for bed mobility, transfers and toileting. The assessment showed he 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.
- Potential for harm · D2026-06-29 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
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 provide medications as ordered by the prescriber, to meet the needs of 4 of 4 residents sampled for medication administration, (#1, #2, #3, and #4).Findings:1. Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included an unspecified fracture of the upper end of the right humerus, an acute embolism and thrombosis of the deep veins of the right upper extremity, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), and an unspecified mood disorder.Review of the most recent assessment dated [DATE], using the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS), showed that resident #1 was cognitively intact.On 6/29/26 at 9:21 AM, resident #1 said that often while at the facility, she did not receive her prescribed medications and had asked to be sent to the hospital on 3/02/26. She explained she did not receive her insulin, blood pressure medication, blood-thinning medication, and other medications. She said staff told her, We don't have it.A review of…
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.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2026-02-20 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — widespreadDispose of garbage and refuse properly.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure the garbage storage area was maintained in a sanitary condition to ensure garbage was properly contained in dumpsters and trash cans with lids to prevent the harborage and feeding of pests, for one of one garbage storage area reviewed.Findings: On 2/17/26 at 10:10 AM, a tour of the outside garbage storage area was conducted. Three dumpsters and one 55-gallon trash can without lid was present. There were clear used gloves, straws, empty snack wrappers, and a clear trash bag with blue pads and masks on the ground around the dumpster area. A 55-gallon trash can with no lid was over filled with clear garbage bags filled with brown bags, snack wrappers, and blue pads. The Certified Dietary Manager who was present during the tour, confirmed the findings. She stated she was not sure who was responsible to keep the area clean. The Dietary Manager explained, everyone was responsible to keep the area clean. (photo evidence obtained) On 2/18/26 at 10:00 AM, the Plant Operations Manager acknowledged the unsanitary garbage storage…
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.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-02-20 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure 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, interview, and record review the facility failed to maintain cleanliness and sanitation of frying pans and failed to ensure the pureed meal was maintained at the correct hot holding temperature for 5 out of 45 residents who received pureed foods. Findings: 1.On 2/17/26 at 9:50 AM, the initial kitchen inspection was conducted. On the clean pan rack there were two pans with scratched and dried food on the non-stick surfaces. The Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) placed her finger on the non-stick surface and tried to scratch off the dried food. She confirmed the pans should not be used due to their condition. (photo evidence obtained) On 2/19/26 at 11:15 AM, review of the lunch menu revealed, Chicken & Dumplings was the lunch main entree. The cook was checking the hot holding temperatures on the steam table. The hot holding temperature of potentially hazardous foods was confirmed with the cook to be 135 degrees Fahrenheit (F) or above. The cook used a digital system bayonet instant read thermometer which was inserted into the pureed chicken. The reading on the…
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.
- Potential for harm · E2026-02-20 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
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 appropriate infection control practices were followed during medication pass and before meals for both staff and residents on one of one dining area; and failed to ensure approved alcohol-based hand sanitizer was available for use for residents on enhanced barrier precautions and/or contact isolation precautions on one of one units of the facility.Findings:1. During dining room observation on 2/17/26 at approximately 12:05 PM, staff served residents the noon meal in the North wing dining area. Staff were observed not consistently performing hand hygiene during meal distribution between each resident. Speech Therapist (ST) D assisted residents with their meal and was observed not to practice hand hygiene consistently between residents she served. At 12:07 PM, the lunch cart arrived in main dining area on the North wing. Staff failed to offer hand hygiene to residents and no residents in the dining area cleaned or sanitized their…
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.
- Potential for harm · E2021-10-28 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — patternProvide safe, appropriate pain management for a resident who requires such services.
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 that pain management was provided consistent with professional standards of practice for 1 of 1 sampled resident, (#11) in a total sample of 35 residents. Findings: The National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel (NPIAP) redefined the definition of a pressure injury (formerly pressure ulcer) in 2016. The updated staging system includes the following definitions: Pressure Injury: A pressure injury is localized damage to the skin and underlying soft tissue usually over a bony prominence .Stage 4 Pressure Injury: Full-thickness skin and tissue loss . If slough or eschar obscures the extent of tissue loss this is an Unstageable Pressure Injury (www.npiap.com). Resident #11 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE] from an acute care hospital with diagnoses of strokes, dysarthria, malignant neoplasm of sigmoid colon, unstageable pressure ulcer of sacral region, diabetes type 2, gastrostomy, protein calorie…
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.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2021-10-28 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure 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, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure dishes were washed at the appropriate temperature, as per the data plate and manufacturer's instructions. Finding: On 10/25/21 at 9:25 AM, Dietary Aide K placed a dish rack containing dishes into the dish machine. The dial on the dish machine showed temperature at 150 degrees Fahrenheit (F). The Data Plate on the machine, noted the wash temperature should be 160 degrees F. Dietary Aide K placed another rack of dishes into the dish machine and the wash temperature rose to 152 degrees F. Dietary Aide K said she started washing dishes at 9:20 AM and had already stored dishes that she had washed. The Regional Dietary Director acknowledged the wash temperature should be 160 degrees F. and the final rinse temperature should be 180 degrees F. The Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) produced the temperature log book for the dish machine dated 10/25/21 which noted the wash temperature should be at 160 degrees F. and the final rinse should be 180 degrees F. The Food and Drug Administration 2017 Food Code notes in…
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.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2021-10-28 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — patternDispose of garbage and refuse properly.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure garbage and refuse was disposed in a sanitary manner. Finding: On Monday, 10/25/21 at 9:25 AM, an uncovered dumpster was observed located at the back of the facility. The dumpster did not have a cover lid. The Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) said the dumpster was used by maintenance. The maintenance dumpster contained picture frames, old furniture, clear trash bags containing paper, food cartons and juice cups. The CDM stated that food items should not be in this dumpster. The Maintenance Assistant arrived at the site and acknowledged that food refuse should be in the regular dumpster and not in the maintenance dumpster. The CDM stated food and food cartons should be in the closed dumpster to prevent rodents and pests. The Food and Drug Administration's 2017 Food Code refers to the use of outside receptacles for waste in chapter 5-501.15(A). Receptacles and waste handling units for refuse, recyclables and returnables used with materials containing food residue and use outside the food establishment shall be designed…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2021-10-28 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
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 follow physician orders for respiratory therapy for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for respiratory care of a total sample of 35 residents, (#54, #35). Findings: 1. Resident #54 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of cerebral infarction, acute respiratory failure, and tracheostomy. The resident's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with reference date 9/26/21 revealed the resident had a tracheostomy, received oxygen therapy, and suctioning. Resident #54 had care plan dated 12/05/18 for tracheostomy related to respiratory failure. She required continuous use of supplemental oxygen and care plan included interventions to, Observe respiratory rate, depth and quality oxygen as per orders On 10/25/21 at 12:50 PM, resident #54 was noted with oxygen therapy via her tracheostomy collar at 3 liters per minute (LPM). Review of the medical record revealed resident #54's physician order dated 10/25/21 read, Oxygen continuous at 5…
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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2020-02-12 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — isolatedDispose of garbage and refuse properly.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure waste was contained and the garbage area was clean and free of debris. Finding: On Sunday 2/9/19 at 10:21 AM, the dumpster area at the back of the facility was noted to be unclean. There were disposed individual condiment packages that included salt, pepper, tarter sauce, numerous amount of cigarette ends and other debris near the 3 dumpsters. One of the dumpster's lid was open. At 10:45 AM, the certified dietary manager (CDM) arrived at the facility and stated that maintenance staff was responsible for keeping the dumpster area clean. The CDM added that no one should be smoking behind the dumpsters as there was a designated area for employees to smoke. The CDM said the dumpster doors must be closed and the area maintained in a sanitary condition to prevent the harborage and feeding of pests.
“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.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to AVANTE CENTERS — 11 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 →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 3 of 5 | 2.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.2 | +0.8 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 2.7 | +1.3 vs chain |
The other 10 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.5★, per CMS)
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
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AG HOLDINGS, INC. | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 09/30/1999 |
| AMITTAI BEN-AVIV DYNASTY TRUST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 8% | since 06/20/1989 |
| DEBBIE KLURMAN 1994 TRUST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 8% | since 06/20/1989 |
| MONA MIZRACHI 1994 TRUST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 8% | since 06/20/1989 |
| SISEL KLURMAN 2001 REVOCABLE TRUST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 25% | since 04/09/2010 |
| BIEGASIEWICZ, KIMBERLY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 02/04/2022 |
| HORNACK, JOHN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 04/24/2019 |
| CHOPRA, SHAWN | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/23/2025 |
| TYLER, BRITTNEY | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/23/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 11 rows in the source record cover these 9 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
5 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.
What families pay in FL
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Florida Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 106027. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-02-20, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.