AVIATA AT BRADENTON
Over 2 years since last inspection. Current conditions may differ from available data.
Aviata at Bradenton has a Trust Grade of C+, indicating a decent performance that is slightly above average compared to other nursing homes. It ranks #318 out of 690 facilities in Florida, placing it in the top half, and #7 out of 12 in Manatee County, meaning there are only six local facilities that are better. The overall trend is improving, with issues decreasing from 9 in 2023 to 3 in 2025, which is a positive sign. Staffing rates average at 3 out of 5 stars, with a turnover rate of 45%, which is close to the state average, suggesting some stability in staff but room for improvement. Notably, the facility has not incurred any fines, indicating compliance with regulations, and offers average RN coverage, meaning residents receive adequate nursing attention. However, there are concerns to be aware of. For example, there was a serious incident where a resident was hospitalized due to a lack of timely wound care, which resulted in a severe infection. Additionally, there were multiple deficiencies noted, including failures to provide consistent incontinence care for residents and not completing necessary mental health assessments for some residents. While there are positive aspects to consider, families should weigh these strengths against the identified issues as they make their decision.
- Trust Score
- C+
- In Florida
- #318/690
- Safety Record
- Moderate
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 45% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Florida facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ○ Average
- Each resident gets 35 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Florida. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 20 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Near Florida average (3.2)
Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities
Near Florida avg (46%)
Higher turnover may affect care consistency
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 20 deficiencies on record
Aug 2025
3 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Grievances
(Tag F0585)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a functioning grievance process for one resident (#2) of four residents reviewed for grievances.Findings included: A ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Room Equipment
(Tag F0908)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a timely repair of a call bell light for one resident (#2) of five sampled residents. Findings included: On 08/12/2025...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Incontinence Care
(Tag F0690)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure timely and consistent incontinence services were provided for three residents (#3, #4, and #2) of four residents samp...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2023
3 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Grievances
(Tag F0585)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure a grievance was investigated and tracked through to a concl...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #3 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] from an acute care hospital. His medical d...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure a wandering device was placed on one resident...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2023
6 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Grievances
(Tag F0585)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation and interview the facility failed to follow their grievance policy for one (#2) out of thirty Residents related to ensuring a prompt resolution of missing hygiene products.
Findi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0694
(Tag F0694)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide care and services to two (Residents#31 and #4...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0698
(Tag F0698)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview the facility failed to communicate with the dialysis center for one (Resident #51) out of o...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Unnecessary Medications
(Tag F0759)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the medication error rate was less than 5.00%. Twenty-eight medication administration opportunities were observed...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow professional standards of practice as it relat...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
PASARR Coordination
(Tag F0644)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to complete the Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) Le...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2021
5 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0554
(Tag F0554)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on resident observation and interview, medical record and policy reviews and interviews with nursing staff, the Director o...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews the facility failed to provide one resident (#28) of five sampled residents or their repre...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0625
(Tag F0625)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews the facility failed to provide two residents (28 and 66) of five sampled, or their represe...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0676
(Tag F0676)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, staff interview and medical record review, the facility failed to ensure one resident (#45) of twenty-sev...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0557
(Tag F0557)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** During the lunch meal observation on 07/12/21 at 12:09 p.m. Staff A, CNA was observed through the open door from the hallway ass...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2019
3 deficiencies
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide one (Resident #54) of one resident receiving outside wound ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Incontinence Care
(Tag F0690)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a urinary catheter was inserted according to pr...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on medical record reviews and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the required Interdisciplinary Team participated in resident care planning for 13 of 28 sampled residents (#62, #65, ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Florida facilities.
- • 20 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
About This Facility
What is Aviata At Bradenton's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns AVIATA AT BRADENTON an overall rating of 3 out of 5 stars, which is considered average nationally. Within Florida, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This mid-range rating indicates the facility meets federal standards but may have areas for improvement.
How is Aviata At Bradenton Staffed?
CMS rates AVIATA AT BRADENTON's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 45%, compared to the Florida average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Aviata At Bradenton?
State health inspectors documented 20 deficiencies at AVIATA AT BRADENTON during 2019 to 2025. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm and 19 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Aviata At Bradenton?
AVIATA AT BRADENTON is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by AVIATA HEALTH GROUP, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 110 certified beds and approximately 94 residents (about 85% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in BRADENTON, Florida.
How Does Aviata At Bradenton Compare to Other Florida Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Florida, AVIATA AT BRADENTON's overall rating (3 stars) is below the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (45%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Aviata At Bradenton?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?"
Is Aviata At Bradenton Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, AVIATA AT BRADENTON has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 3-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Florida. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.
Do Nurses at Aviata At Bradenton Stick Around?
AVIATA AT BRADENTON has a staff turnover rate of 45%, which is about average for Florida nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.
Was Aviata At Bradenton Ever Fined?
AVIATA AT BRADENTON has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.
Is Aviata At Bradenton on Any Federal Watch List?
AVIATA AT BRADENTON is not on any federal watch list. The most significant is the Special Focus Facility (SFF) program, which identifies the bottom 1% of nursing homes nationally based on persistent, serious quality problems. Not being on this list means the facility has avoided the pattern of deficiencies that triggers enhanced federal oversight. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review the facility's inspection history directly.