No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Aviata At Big Bend

207 Marshall Dr, Perry, FL 32347 · For profit - Corporation · 120 certified beds · (850) 584-6334 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Special Focus candidate (CMS is watching this home)Flagged for abuse3 immediate-jeopardy citations$150,655 in federal fines
Insights

This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.

In its favor
  • a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
Worth asking about
  • CMS lists it as a Special Focus candidate — not on the watch list itself, but among the homes CMS is watching because of its recent inspection history
  • CMS has flagged it for abuse
  • it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Feb 2026
  • it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
  • inspectors cited 3 immediate-jeopardy problems — the most serious level
  • a high number of inspection citations overall (18) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
  • the CMS record shows $150,655 in federal fines (most recent 2025-08-07)
  • its payroll- and facility-reported staffing and quality-measure scores sit well above its independent inspection score
  • its independent health-inspection rating is low (1/5)
  • nursing-staff turnover (61%) runs well above the national median (45%)

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.

1/5
CMS overall
1 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 1 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 4 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 4 of 5

Worth a closer look. This home's staffing and quality-measure ratings run 3 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself, and staffing on its payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
555 N Byron Butler Pkwy · (850) 838-8636 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
200 N Jefferson St · (850) 584-7692 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
107 S Jefferson St · (850) 584-3354 · Call to confirm hours
Park
300 W Julia St · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship
601 W Ash St · (850) 584-6155

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 4 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 5 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 2 of 5

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 fell from 5 to 1 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.

Overall rating1★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased6.7%8.7%15.4%better
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight2.8%5.5%5.4%better
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.0%0.3%0.9%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection0.0%0.7%2.0%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms1.5%4.6%6.5%better
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.0%0.1%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury2.2%2.5%3.3%better
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened5.2%9.5%16.1%better
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication19.9%14.4%18.9%typical
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%99.2%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers4.7%4.5%4.7%typical
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control6.6%10.5%21.2%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table4.6%8.6%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication0.0%1.5%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%94.7%79.4%better
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission22.1%26.1%22.6%typical
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit26.0%9.1%12.0%worse
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days1.432.131.67better
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days4.011.151.80worse

On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.

§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.

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.

38.5% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 32 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

38.5%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
11.3%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
56.6%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.16U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.08hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.07hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.01hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 56.6% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 53 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.

Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.16 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 14% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 17% 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
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF38.5%CMS range 25.6–61.251.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF11.3%CMS range 7.5–16.910.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge56.6%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge52.8%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge54.7%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified100.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care settingnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. 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 dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. 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 stay0.0%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened3.1%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization8.4%CMS range 5.3–15.27.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs1.301.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS makes no comparison for this 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

1.01
RN hours/ resident / day
0.56
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.11
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.68
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.74
RN hoursweekends
61.2%
Total nursing turnover
50.0%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 120 beds and averages 66.4 residents a day — about 55% occupied, or roughly 54 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 3.68 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.01 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.11 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 3.19 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.88 on weekdays — 18% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.12 to 0.74 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 61% is well above the national median of 45%. 2 administrators have left in the past year — frequent leadership churn is a warning sign families often miss.

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

4
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2026-03-26)
4
at the previous standard inspection (2024-12-18)

Deficiencies are unchanged from the previous inspection. 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.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

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.

18 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.

  • Immediate jeopardy · Lcited before2025-09-11 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — widespread
    Protect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record reviews, interviews, and policy reviews, the facility failed to prevent abuse and neglect resulting in an elopement for two residents (Residents #1 and #2) while in a secured and locked unit and while Resident #2 was under one-to-one supervision creating a potential for serious injury or death for both residents. The facility failed to prevent neglect for Resident #3, who was immobile and left in her room with the body of her deceased roommate for three hours resulting in serious psychosocial harm. The facility failed to prevent abuse by Resident #4, who suffered injuries from self-harm and was removed from the facility because of physical aggression toward a staff member while under one-to-one supervision. The cumulative effect of the failures resulted in potential for abuse and/or neglect for 85 out of 85 residents. Cross reference to F689 (Residents #1, #2, and #4), F550 (Resident #3), and F656 (Residents #1, # 2, and #4).This situation resulted in a finding of Immediate Jeopardy…

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

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Immediate jeopardy · L2025-09-11 · tag F0865 — failed to run a quality-improvement (QAPI) program — widespread
    Have a plan that describes the process for conducting QAPI and QAA activities.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews, records reviews, a review of the facility QAPI (quality assurance and performance improvement) plan, facility assessment, and event investigation documents, the facility failed to maintain an effective QAPI program to ensure the supervision of residents at risk for elopement, self-harm, and aggressive behaviors (Residents #1, #2, and #4). Cross reference F600, F689.These failures resulted in substandard quality of care at the Immediate Jeopardy level beginning on 8/8/2025.The facility's QAPI committee failed to perform and/or document analysis of events following the elopement while under one-to-one supervision for Resident #2. The facility failed to investigate and/or develop an improvement plan to meet the needs for Resident #4 who had multiple discharges and readmissions to the facility, including after the Administrator issued a transfer discharge notice on July 4, 2025, which identified that Resident #4's needs could not be met at the facility.This situation resulted in a finding 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.

    Administration Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Immediate jeopardy · Kcited before2025-09-11 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — pattern
    Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
    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 record reviews, interviews, and policy reviews, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision for residents identified as high risk for elopement for 2 out of 14 vulnerable residents (Residents #1 and #2) and for one resident identified as physically aggressive towards self, staff, and residents (Resident #4). The facility failed to provide supervision to prevent an unwitnessed exit from the facility for Resident #1 and Resident #2 on 8/30/2025 while Resident #2 was assigned to one-to-one (1:1) supervision and both Residents #1 and #2 were located on a secured, locked unit of the facility. The facility failed to prevent Resident #4 from self-injury while on one-to-one supervision on 9/8/2025 and failed to prevent physical aggression by Resident #4 on 9/9/2025 resulting in Resident #4 punching a nurse in the face and being removed from the facility by law enforcement under an order for involuntary psychiatric examination. The cumulative effect of these events resulted in deficient practice 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Actual harm · Hcited before2025-09-11 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — pattern
    Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, observation, record, and policy reviews, the facility failed to implement care plan interventions for 4 residents (#1, #2, #5, and #11). Resident #11 was negatively impacted by the failure to implement the care plan to assist the resident in communicating his emotional, intellectual, physical, and social needs. The facility's failure to implement care plans related to adequate supervision for residents #1, #2, and #4 resulted in their ability to exit the facility for residents #1, #2, and #4 and for Resident #4 to cause physical injury to himself and others.Cross reference F600, F689.The findings include:Resident #1 and #2 A record review for Resident #1 included diagnoses of chronic kidney disease stage 3, hyperlipidemia, generalized anxiety, hypertension, Atrial Fibralation, chronic systolic heart failure, and TBI. A minimum data set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] included a brief interview for mental status score (BIMS) of 7. A score of 0-7 indicates severe problems with thinking or memory…

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

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-03-26 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — pattern
    Honor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations and interview, the facility failed to maintain a clean and comfortable environment for 7 of 16 sampled occupied resident rooms. (Rooms # 100, #105, #201 #202, #206, #305, and #401)The findings include:room [ROOM NUMBER] On 3/23/26 at approximately 11:30 AM, room [ROOM NUMBER] was observed with a resident on a pillow with numerous small tears and a dinner plate sized hole with exposed inner foam stained brownish yellow. There was no pillowcase on the pillow. The wardrobe was observed to have a door hanging off the hinge with the sleeve of a long-sleeved shirt draped over the top through the gap. The dresser had exposed particle board along the top border of each drawer. The privacy curtain was soiled with multiple reddish-brown splotches. A follow up observation was conducted in room [ROOM NUMBER] with the Staff F/Registered Nurse. The soiled and ripped up pillow was observed resting on the seat of a wheelchair beside the resident's bed. Staff F observed the pillow and stated the damaged and…

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

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-03-26 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
    Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observations, staff interviews and record review, the facility failed to develop a smoking care plan to address smoking supervision and assistance requirements for 1 of 3 residents sampled for smoking. (Resident #11)The findings include:Resident #11 was observed smoking in the designated smoking area with staff supervision on 3/24/26 at approximately 1:25 PM and on 3/25/26 at approximately 9:34 AM and 3:33 PM. The facility supplied a resident smoker list on 3/23/26 with Resident #11 on the current list.A review of the resident's care plan revealed no care plan or interventions related to smoking and the resident requiring assistance with personal care due to weakness. A list of the resident's evaluations revealed one smoking evaluation completed on 2/20/26 at 3:39 PM.A review of the resident's progress notes from the Nurse Practitioner, with the date of 12/22/25, revealed the nicotine patch was discontinued due to the resident's smoking.An interview was conducted with Employee J (certified nursing assistant (CNA)) on 3/24/26 at approximately 1:30 PM, who indicated 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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-03-26 · tag F0887 — isolated
    Educate residents and staff on COVID-19 vaccination, offer the COVID-19 vaccine to eligible residents and staff after education, and properly document each resident and staff member's vaccination status.
    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 staff interview, resident record reviews, and review of the facility's policy and procedure, the facility failed to implement their policy and procedure to ensure residents were provided with education of the risk and benefits of the vaccine and offered the COVID-19 vaccine in accordance with current CDC (Center for Disease Control and Prevention) guidelines for 4 of 5 residents sampled for immunizations. (Residents #20, #28, #29, and #32)The findings include: On 03/24/2026, a record review was conducted for Resident #20. The record revealed documentation on 03/05/2024 that the resident refused the COVID-19 vaccine. There was no documentation to indicate if the resident was provided with education or offered the 2025/2026 COVID-19 vaccine.On 03/25/2026, a record review was conducted for Resident #28 record revealed no documentation on COVID-19 consent, education, or documented offer of the COVID-19 vaccine to Resident #28 since the resident was admitted on [DATE]. There was no documentation indicating…

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

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-03-26 · tag F0919 — failed to provide a working call system — isolated
    Make sure that a working call system is available in each resident's bathroom and bathing area.
    What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

    Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure a functioning call light system in the bathroom that could be activated from the floor for 2 of 2 sampled residents. (Residents #4 and #23)The findings include:On 3/24/26 at approximately 3:00 PM, an observation of a bathroom shared between Resident #4 and Resident #23 revealed a call light cord approximately 2 inches long by the toilet and not reachable from the floor in the event of a fall.An interview was conducted on 3/24/26 at approximately 3:05 PM with Employee G, Registered Nurse (RN). She confirmed the call light cord was too short to be activated by residents if they were on the floor following a fall. The RN indicated she would submit a work order for maintenance to address the concern.An interview was conducted on 3/25/26 at approximately 9:33 AM with the Maintenance Director that confirmed the call light cord was too short and required replacement. The Maintenance Director indicated the staff should submit work orders when repairs are needed and he had not been notified of the issue.

    Environmental Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-02-11 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolated
    Protect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to protect residents from abuse for 1 of 7 residents sampled for abuse. (Resident #1)The findings include: On 2/10/26 at approximately 12:00 PM, an interview was conducted with Resident #1, who stated that, on 1/19/26, Staff A, Registered Nurse (RN) entered his room speaking loudly, stating that he is a liar and he is going to get her mom written up. Resident #1 went on to state that the Social Worker Aide (SWA) was present and instructed Staff A to leave the room. Resident #1 went on to state he did not receive a bath on 1/19/26 and 2/3/26 and felt he was being retaliated on from Staff A. Resident #1 stated on another occasion after 1/19/26, Resident #5 was in his (Resident #1) room visiting when Staff A entered his room yelling. Staff A stated she heard him talking about her and to keep her name out of his mouth. Resident #1 stated he wrote a grievance on the missing baths and reported the verbal abuse from Staff A to the Administrator and the Director of Nursing (DON).On 2/10/26 at approximately 1:00 PM, an interview 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.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-02-11 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolated
    Timely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to immediately identify and report an allegation of verbal abuse for 1 of 7 residents sampled for abuse. (Resident #1).The findings include:On 2/10/26 at approximately 12:00 PM, an interview was conducted with Resident #1, who stated that, on 1/19/26, the Social Worker Aide (SWA) was present while Staff A, Registered Nurse (RN), entered his room yelling at him. Resident #1 stated he reported the verbal abuse from Staff A and the feeling of retaliation to the Administrator and the Director of Nursing (DON).On 2/10/26 at approximately 3:35 PM, an interview was conducted with the DON, who stated he spoke to the Administrator about the allegation of verbal abuse on 1/19/26 and was under the impression that the Administrator reported to the state agencies on 1/19/26.On 2/10/26 at approximately 4:00 PM, an interview was conducted with the Administrator, who stated she had been informed of the allegation on 1/19/26. The Administrator went on to say she did not report the abuse to the state agency, stating she did not feel it 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.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-02-11 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolated
    Respond appropriately to all alleged violations.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure a thorough investigation was conducted of the allegation to protect residents for 1 of 7 residents sampled for mandated reporting. (Resident #1)The findings include:On 2/10/26 at approximately 3:10 PM, an interview was conducted with the Social Service Director (SSD) who stated on 1/19/26 she reported the abuse allegations made by Resident #1 to the Administrator, who is also the facility's abuse coordinator, and felt the allegations were verbal abuse and Staff A needed to be suspended. On 2/10/26 at approximately 4:40 PM, an interview was conducted with the Human Resource Director (HRD), who stated on 1/19/26, while in morning meeting, she heard the SSD report the abuse allegations to the Administrator and that Staff A needed to be suspended. The HRD stated she also went to the Administrator and told her Staff A needed to be suspended. The HRD stated she began a workplace investigation on 1/19/26 and Staff A was terminated on 2/9/26.On 2/10/26 at approximately 4:45 PM, an interview was conducted with Resident #1,…

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

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-08-07 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, record review and interviews, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision to prevent incidents for 1 to 1 monitoring for 1 of 3 residents. (Resident #1)The findings include:On 8/5/25 at 10:35 AM, during the tour of hall 100, observed Staff Member C (Director of Patient Experience) sitting in the hallway. She was assigned 1:1 monitoring for Resident #3. It was noted that Staff C could not observe Resident #3 for 1:1 due to the door being closed. On 8/6/25 at approximately 3:45 PM, a follow up observation of Hall 100 was performed. Staff Member C was in the hall and assigned to be on 1:1 observation for Resident #3. However, it was not possible to see Resident #3 due to the door only being slightly open with the privacy curtain pulled. On 8/6/25 at approximately 9:24am, an interview was performed with the Regional Nurse about 1:1 procedures. She stated that the facility does not have a 1:1 policy in place. On 8/6/25 at approximately 4:44 pm, an interview with the LPN MDS Coordinator was performed. She was asked about any training for 1:1 procedures for…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2024-12-18 · tag F0926 — failed to keep the home smoke-free / fire-safe — pattern
    Have policies on smoking.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure policies were upheld regarding smoking to ensure safety for 6 of 6 residents reviewed for smoking (Resident #42, #37, #65, #36, #6, #30). The findings include: Resident #42 During a tour of the facility conducted on 12/16/24 at 12:20 PM, the surveyor observed Resident #42 sitting at the side of her bed with a vape hanging from a lanyard around her neck. An interview was conducted with Resident #42 at this time. The resident was asked if the facility allowed her to keep her vape on her or if the staff was supposed to keep it for her. Resident #42 shrugged her shoulders in response. A review of Resident #42's record revealed she was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was last readmitted on [DATE]. Resident #42 has a medical history significant for Lack of Coordination, Communication Deficit, Muscle Weakness, and Tremor. Review of Resident #42's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documented she had a Brief…

    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.

    Environmental Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-12-18 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolated
    Honor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
    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 provide a sanitary environment in the dining rooms, laundry area and one residential room. The findings include: On 12/16/24 at 11:40 AM, a tour of the dining and kitchen area was conducted. The floor in the kitchen area had several spills of what appeared to be liquid that was now dry and dry food and crumbs were observed at every table. There were some red stains as well. (Photographic evidence obtained) On 12/16/24 at 11:46 AM, an interview with Staff C, Dietary Aide, was performed. When asked her opinion on the condition of the floors, she stated they were disgusting and unacceptable. When asked who was responsible for keeping the floors clean she stated that someone from laundry across usually sweeps and mops but she was unaware why it had not been done. On 12/16/24 at 11:59 AM, an interview was conducted with Staff D, Licenced Practical Nurse Unit Manager. She was assisting in the dining room that day. When asked her opinion 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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-12-18 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolated
    Provide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, review of records, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure 2 of 3 residents sampled received restorative nursing as recommended. (Resident #31 and #55) The findings include: Resident #31 On 12/16/24 at approximately 12:45 PM, Resident #31 was noted to have his left arm, wrist, and hand contracted. There was a splint lying on his bedside table. On 12/16/24 at approximately 3:52 PM, Resident #31 was observed without a splint in place. The splint was lying on his bedside table. The resident was asked if that splint was for his wrist and hand. He nodded yes in agreement indicating that the brace was for his left arm, wrist, and hand. On 12/17/24 at approximately 8:50 AM, Resident #31 was observed without his splint on. On 12/17/24 at approximately 11:51 AM, Resident #31 was observed up in his wheelchair watching television in a common area. He did not have a brace on at the time of the observation. On 12/17/24 at approximately 3:21 PM, Resident #31 was observed awake 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-12-18 · tag F0693 — failed to provide proper feeding-tube care — isolated
    Ensure that feeding tubes are not used unless there is a medical reason and the resident agrees; and provide appropriate care for a resident with a feeding tube.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure physician orders for tube feeding were followed and failed to ensure tube feeding was administered in a proper manner for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for tube feeding. (Resident #242) The findings include: During a tour of the facility conducted on 12/16/24 at 11:53 AM, Resident #242 was observed with a tube feeding bag. Closer observation revealed there were no labels, date, time, or tube feeding formulary written on the bag. The tube feeding machine was set for the tube feeding to instill at 60 milliliters per hour (mL/hr) and for the water flush to instill at 100mL every 2 hours (photographic evidence obtained). The initial record review for Resident #242 revealed that the physician orders for tube feeding included an order written on 12/03/24 for Jevity 1.5 60ml/hr X [run for] 24 hours and an order written on 11/18/24 for Flush g-tube [feeding tube] with 100mL of water every 6 hours for hydration. Resident #242 was admitted to…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-12-18 · tag F0732 — isolated
    Post nurse staffing information every day.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation and interviews, the facility failed to post nursing staffing in an accessible location that included the required information daily on 1 of 3 survey dates. (12/16/2024) The findings include: On 12/16/24 at approximately 12:00 PM, during an observation, no staffing was posted as required anywhere in the facility. The dry eraser board in both the east and west wing did have a date and the total number of actual hours worked by staff, but it was not posted in a clear and readable format in a place accessible to residents and visitors. On 12/16/24 at approximately 1:00 PM, Staff Member M, a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA), was asked to show where staffing was posted. She indicated that it should be posted on the dry erase board but acknowledged that it was not complete. (photographic evidence was obtained). On 12/17/24, staffing information was posted as required. On 12/18/24 at approximately 2:00 PM, an interview was conducted with the Staffing Coordinator Scheduler was conducted. She was asked to show where staffing was posted on 12/16/24. She initially…

    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.

    Nursing and Physician Services Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-10-04 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolated
    Honor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, resident interviews, and staff interview, the facility failed to provide housekeeping and maintenance services to maintain a clean and orderly environment and ensure sufficient hot water in 6 of 16 sampled resident rooms. (Rooms 110, 206, 207, 212, 214, and 216) The findings include: An observation of room [ROOM NUMBER] was conducted on 10/2/23 at 2:43 PM. The overbed table was missing the plastic border and had exposed rough edges. In addition, the bathroom had a rusted toilet riser and peeling paint on the wall. (Photographic evidence obtained.) It was further discovered that after the hot water ran in the bathroom sink for approximately 3 minutes, the water did not get warm. An interview was conducted with Resident #51 at this time, and she stated they have not had any hot water in the bathroom since Hurricane Idalia about a month ago. An observation of room [ROOM NUMBER] was conducted with the Administrator on 10/4/23 at 2:32 PM. She observed and confirmed the peeling paint in 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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

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

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • 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.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

$150,655 in federal fines across 2 penalties.

  • $26,685 — penalty dated 2025-08-07
  • $123,970 — penalty dated 2025-08-07

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

Part of a chain

This home belongs to AVIATA HEALTH GROUP — 50 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 →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 1 of 52.4-1.4 vs chain
Health inspection 1 of 52.0-1.0 vs chain
Staffing 4 of 52.7+1.3 vs chain
Quality measures 4 of 54.1≈ chain avg
The other 49 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.4★, per CMS)
1 of 5Aspire At EvansFort Myers, FL 1 of 5Aviata At BenevaSarasota, FL 1 of 5Aviata At Bryan DairyLargo, FL 1 of 5Aviata At FletcherTampa, FL 1 of 5Aviata At Palma Sola BayBradenton, FL 1 of 5Aviata At Saint LucieFort Pierce, FL 1 of 5Aviata At SarasotaSarasota, FL 1 of 5Aviata At SeminoleSeminole, FL 1 of 5Aviata At The BayTampa, FL 1 of 5Aviata At The PalmsPalm Harbor, FL 1 of 5Aviata At VeniceVenice, FL 2 of 5Aviata At Arbor SpringsOcala, FL 2 of 5Aviata At BradentonBradenton, FL 2 of 5Aviata At BrentwoodLecanto, FL 2 of 5Aviata At Colonial LakesWinter Garden, FL 2 of 5Aviata At EnglewoodEnglewood, FL 2 of 5Aviata At Grand OaksPalm Coast, FL 2 of 5Aviata At Green Cove SpringsGreen Cove Springs, FL 2 of 5Aviata At GreenacresGreen Acres, FL 2 of 5Aviata At Lakeside OaksDunedin, FL 2 of 5Aviata At OakfieldBrandon, FL 2 of 5Aviata At Santa BarbaraCape Coral, FL 2 of 5Aviata At South DaytonaSouth Daytona, FL 2 of 5Aviata At TallahasseeTallahassee, FL 2 of 5Aviata At The HarborSafety Harbor, FL 2 of 5Aviata At The Sea - PasadenaSouth Pasadena, FL 2 of 5Aviata At The Sea - Pompano BeachPompano Beach, FL 2 of 5Aviata At West Palm BeachWest Palm Beach, FL 2 of 5Aviata at Sand KeyClearwater, FL 3 of 5Aspire At Ridge HavenNew Port Richey, FL 3 of 5Aviata At BrooksvilleBrooksville, FL 3 of 5Aviata At Central ParkBrandon, FL 3 of 5Aviata At Coral BayWest Palm Beach, FL 3 of 5Aviata At CountrysidePalm Harbor, FL 3 of 5Aviata At JacksonvilleJacksonville, FL 3 of 5Aviata At North Fort MyersN Ft Myers, FL 3 of 5Aviata At RosewoodOrlando, FL 3 of 5Aviata At San JoseJacksonville, FL 3 of 5Aviata At St CloudSaint Cloud, FL 3 of 5Aviata At The Sea - Harbor BeachFort Lauderdale, FL

Showing 40 of 49; lowest-rated first.

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 / managerTypeRoleSince
MARSHALL PARENT LLCOrganizationDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTsince 09/01/2023
PERRY HOLDCO LLCOrganizationINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTsince 09/01/2023
FREUND, NOCHUMIndividualCORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 09/01/2023
INNOCENT SIMON, JOELLEIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 09/01/2023
VILSACK, MIRANDAIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/20/2025
DAGAN, AMITAIIndividualINDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNFsince 07/14/2025
GOLDBERGER, ABRAHAMIndividualINDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNFsince 07/14/2025
GOLDBERGER, FAIGYIndividualINDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNFsince 07/14/2025
HERSKOWITZ, ELIEZERIndividualINDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNFsince 07/14/2025
HERSKOWITZ, YAAKOVIndividualINDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNFsince 07/14/2025
TRAVITSKY, AARONIndividualINDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNFsince 07/14/2025
ASPIRE MGT LLCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 09/01/2023

CMS files one row per role, so the 15 rows in the source record cover these 12 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.

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

Follow the money — this home’s finances

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

$2.5M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-28.8%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$51K
Related-party expense2% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 90%Medicare 5%Other / private 6%

About 90% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $51K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.

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

Cost & finances

$337per resident / day
operating cost
$10,254per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$262per day
avg. revenue, all payers

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

What families pay in FL

Paying with Medicaid

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.

Typical monthly cost in Florida
$10,342/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$12,167/mo
Nursing home (private)
$5,610/mo
Assisted living

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 105631. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-03-26, 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.

What to do next