AVIATA AT JACKSONVILLE
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Aviata at Jacksonville has a Trust Grade of C, which means it is average and sits in the middle of the pack. It ranks #322 out of 690 facilities in Florida, placing it in the top half, but only #24 out of 34 in Duval County, indicating that there are better local options available. The facility is improving, with issues decreasing from 9 in 2022 to 8 in 2023. However, staffing is a concern, rated at 2 out of 5 stars with a turnover rate of 59%, significantly higher than the state average of 42%. While the facility does have some strengths, such as a trend toward improvement, it has encountered specific issues, such as failing to maintain a clean environment with observations of sticky floors and debris in resident rooms and not having a clear oxygen plan for a resident, highlighting areas that need attention.
- Trust Score
- C
- In Florida
- #322/690
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 59% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ○ Average
- $4,778 in fines. Higher than 75% of Florida facilities. Some compliance issues.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 27 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Florida. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 26 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in fire safety.
The Bad
Near Florida average (3.2)
Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities
13pts above Florida avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
11 points above Florida average of 48%
The Ugly 26 deficiencies on record
Dec 2023
6 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment including housekeeping and maintenance services neces...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. On 12/10/23 at 12:07 p.m., Resident #84 was observed with elongated fingernails on both hands with brown matter under his fin...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to implement interventions, including monitoring placement and function of wander-alarm devices, consi...
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 observations, interviews, record review, and facility policy and procedure review, the facility failed to ensure that residents who needed respiratory care, received that care as ordered and ...
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 observations, interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure medication error rates were not 5% or greater. Two errors were identified out of 32 opportun...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe and sanitary environment to help p...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2023
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0660
(Tag F0660)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, record reviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure it provided an effective discharg...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2023
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, staff and resident interviews, medical record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2022
9 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0558
(Tag F0558)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, clinical record review and interviews, the facility failed to provide reasonable accommodation of individ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0561
(Tag F0561)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure the resident's right to make choices about aspects of his ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
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, record review and facility policy and procedure review, the facility failed to adequately investigate griev...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0645
(Tag F0645)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. A clinical record review revealed that Resident #73 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with primary diagnosis of Parkinso...
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 observation, medical record review and interviews, the facility failed to provide appropriate services and communicatio...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0760
(Tag F0760)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record reviews, interviews, and facility policy and procedure review, the facility failed to ensure that t...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, record review and facility policy and procedure review, the facility failed to maintain a saf...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. On 02/14/22 at 11:28 AM, Resident #453 was observed resting on bed receiving oxygen therapy via nasal cannula. When she was a...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations, interviews, record review and facility policy and procedure review, the facility failed to ensure nutritional supplements kept in 2 of 2 nourishment refrigerators were stored in...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2020
9 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
2) Record review for Resident #10 revealed that she was admitted into the facility on 8/23/2019. Her last readmission was 12/25/2019.
Her diagnoses included: aphasia; hemiplegia/hemiparesis; type 1 di...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0583
(Tag F0583)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide privacy during personal care for 1 of 1 resident that was reviewed in a sample of 37 residents (Resident #8).
The find...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, staff interviews and facility policy and procedure review, the facility failed to ensure a clean environm...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with the resident rights that included measurable objecti...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that care plans for 2 of 37 residents sampled, Resident #10 and Resident #66, were reviewed and revised by the interdis...
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 observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to provide respiratory care according to the physician's orders and care plan for 1 of 1 residents receiving oxygen that were ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review; the facility failed to ensure that it provided for an assessment of behaviors related to the administration of Seroquel and Xanax for 1 (Resident #58) of 6 reside...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview and review of medical records and Medication Administration Record (MAR) review, the faciliy failed to ensure that it provided for a completed medical records related t...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
QAPI Program
(Tag F0867)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure that it developed and implemented an appropriate plan of action to correct identified quality deficiencies for the om...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • No major safety red flags. No abuse findings, life-threatening violations, or SFF status.
- • $4,778 in fines. Lower than most Florida facilities. Relatively clean record.
- • 26 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
- • Grade C (53/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
- • 59% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
About This Facility
What is Aviata At Jacksonville's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns AVIATA AT JACKSONVILLE 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 Jacksonville Staffed?
CMS rates AVIATA AT JACKSONVILLE's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 59%, which is 13 percentage points above the Florida average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 65%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.
What Have Inspectors Found at Aviata At Jacksonville?
State health inspectors documented 26 deficiencies at AVIATA AT JACKSONVILLE during 2020 to 2023. These included: 26 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates Aviata At Jacksonville?
AVIATA AT JACKSONVILLE 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 116 certified beds and approximately 106 residents (about 91% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in JACKSONVILLE, Florida.
How Does Aviata At Jacksonville Compare to Other Florida Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Florida, AVIATA AT JACKSONVILLE's overall rating (3 stars) is below the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (59%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Aviata At Jacksonville?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's high staff turnover rate and the below-average staffing rating.
Is Aviata At Jacksonville Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, AVIATA AT JACKSONVILLE 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 Jacksonville Stick Around?
Staff turnover at AVIATA AT JACKSONVILLE is high. At 59%, the facility is 13 percentage points above the Florida average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 65%. RNs handle complex medical decisions and coordinate care — frequent RN changes can directly impact care quality. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?
Was Aviata At Jacksonville Ever Fined?
AVIATA AT JACKSONVILLE has been fined $4,778 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Florida average of $33,127. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.
Is Aviata At Jacksonville on Any Federal Watch List?
AVIATA AT JACKSONVILLE 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.