AVIATA AT SANTA BARBARA
Over 2 years since last inspection. Current conditions may differ from available data.
Aviata at Santa Barbara has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating poor quality and significant concerns regarding resident care. It ranks #466 out of 690 nursing homes in Florida, placing it in the bottom half of facilities statewide, and #11 out of 19 in Lee County, meaning only a few local options are worse. The facility is experiencing a worsening trend, with issues increasing from 1 in 2024 to 3 in 2025. Staffing is rated average with a turnover rate of 40%, which is better than the state average, but the facility has concerning fines totaling $498,334, higher than 98% of Florida facilities, suggesting serious compliance issues. Critical incidents include a failure to supervise a resident with dysphagia properly, leading to choking and eventual death, and inadequate assessments of swallowing ability for residents, highlighting significant deficiencies in care and oversight.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Florida
- #466/690
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 40% turnover. Near Florida's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $498,334 in fines. Lower than most Florida facilities. Relatively clean record.
- 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
- 25 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (40%)
8 points below Florida average of 48%
Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Below Florida average (3.2)
Below average - review inspection findings carefully
Near Florida avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Well above median ($33,413)
Significant penalties indicating serious issues
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 25 deficiencies on record
Aug 2025
2 deficiencies
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
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure 3 (Residents #1, #2 and #3) of 3 residents reviewed received care and services in accordance with professional standards of practice...
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
Laboratory Services
(Tag F0770)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on record review and interview, the facility staff failed to follow processes to ensure laboratory testing were done as ordered to meet the needs of 3 (Residents #1, #2 and #3) of 3 residents re...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2025
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(E)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interview, and record review the facility failed provide appropriate interventions to prevent falls for 2...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2024
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, review of facility's policy and procedure review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to report an...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2023
3 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0582
(Tag F0582)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review, review of facility policy and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide the Skilled Nursing Advance Beneficiary Notice of Non-coverage to 1 (Resident #31) of 3 residents...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0688
(Tag F0688)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, review of facility policy and procedure, clinical record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide appropriate services and interventions to maintain function a...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, review of facility policy and procedures and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure insulin pens were properly labeled and dated when opened in 2 (Cart #4 and #5) of 3 m...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2023
6 deficiencies
5 IJ
CRITICAL
(J)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff and resident representative interviews, the facility failed to protect residents' rights to be fre...
Read full inspector narrative →
CRITICAL
(J)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff, and resident representative interviews, the facility failed to have processes in place to ensure ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CRITICAL
(J)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, staff and resident representative interview, the facility failed to ensure ongoing clinical...
Read full inspector narrative →
CRITICAL
(J)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, residents' representatives and staff interviews, the facility failed to implement processes...
Read full inspector narrative →
CRITICAL
(J)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Administration
(Tag F0835)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, resident and staff interview the facility administration failed to use its resources effectively to prot...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0838
(Tag F0838)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on a review of the Facility Assessment, review of the CMS (Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services) form Resident Census and Condition of Residents, and staff interview, the facility failed to...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2021
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, review of facility policy, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure proper storage of medications in 1 (Medication cart #4) of 3 medication carts reviewed for proper s...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2019
11 deficiencies
2 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, resident and staff interviews the facility failed to provide the necessary services to maintain continen...
Read full inspector narrative →
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Deficiency F0725
(Tag F0725)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 16. In an interview on 12/9/19 at 1:15 p.m., Resident #260 said if I ask to go back to bed, they tell me I will have to wait, an...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0554
(Tag F0554)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, resident and staff interview, and record review the facility failed to determine a resident is safe to self-administer medication for 1 (Resident #159) of 1 resident reviewed for...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0688
(Tag F0688)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, resident and staff interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide appropriate interventions to prevent the worsening of contracture for 1 (Resident #29) of 4 reside...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review, policies and procedures review, and resident and staff interviews the facility failed to provide oxygen as per physician's order and failed to develop a care plan ...
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
Based on observation, resident and staff interviews, and clinical record review the facility failed to administer dialysis-related medication for 1 (Resident #159) of 1 resident sampled receiving dial...
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, staff interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate of less than 5%. During medication pass, 2 errors out of 25 opportunities gave an error ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, resident and staff interview, and record review the facility failed to secure all medications in a locked storage area for 1 (Resident #159) of 1 resident reviewed for medication...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0883
(Tag F0883)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to offer and administer the influenza vaccine to 2 (Residents #108 and #29) of 5 residents reviewed for influenza and pn...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to notify the state's Long-Term Care Ombudsman Council (LTCOC) of facility-initiated transfers and discharges since March 2019. The Ombu...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0921)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and resident and staff interview the facility failed to maintain and store resident care equipment in a san...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • 40% turnover. Below Florida's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 5 life-threatening violation(s), 2 harm violation(s), $498,334 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 25 deficiencies on record, including 5 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $498,334 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Florida. Major compliance failures.
- • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Aviata At Santa Barbara's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns AVIATA AT SANTA BARBARA an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered below average nationally. Within Florida, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.
How is Aviata At Santa Barbara Staffed?
CMS rates AVIATA AT SANTA BARBARA's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 40%, compared to the Florida average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Aviata At Santa Barbara?
State health inspectors documented 25 deficiencies at AVIATA AT SANTA BARBARA during 2019 to 2025. These included: 5 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 2 that caused actual resident harm, and 18 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.
Who Owns and Operates Aviata At Santa Barbara?
AVIATA AT SANTA BARBARA 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 120 certified beds and approximately 109 residents (about 91% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in CAPE CORAL, Florida.
How Does Aviata At Santa Barbara Compare to Other Florida Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Florida, AVIATA AT SANTA BARBARA's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (40%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Aviata At Santa Barbara?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations.
Is Aviata At Santa Barbara Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, AVIATA AT SANTA BARBARA has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 5 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 2-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Florida. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.
Do Nurses at Aviata At Santa Barbara Stick Around?
AVIATA AT SANTA BARBARA has a staff turnover rate of 40%, 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 Santa Barbara Ever Fined?
AVIATA AT SANTA BARBARA has been fined $498,334 across 12 penalty actions. This is 13.1x the Florida average of $38,062. Fines at this level are uncommon and typically indicate a pattern of serious deficiencies, repeated violations, or failure to correct problems promptly. CMS reserves penalties of this magnitude for facilities that pose significant, documented risk to resident health or safety. Families should request specific documentation of what issues led to these fines and what systemic changes have been implemented.
Is Aviata At Santa Barbara on Any Federal Watch List?
AVIATA AT SANTA BARBARA 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.