AVANTE AT LEESBURG, INC
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Avante at Leesburg, Inc. has received a Trust Grade of C, which indicates that it is average compared to other nursing homes. It ranks #315 out of 690 facilities in Florida, placing it in the top half, and #8 out of 17 in Lake County, meaning only seven local facilities are rated better. Unfortunately, the trend is worsening, with issues increasing from 4 in 2024 to 10 in 2025. Staffing is a concern here, with a below-average rating of 2 out of 5 stars and a high turnover rate of 65%, significantly above the state average of 42%. The facility has not received any fines, which is a positive sign, but it has less RN coverage than 87% of Florida facilities, potentially impacting the quality of care. Specific incidents include unsafe food storage practices, such as improperly stored sugar and rice, and failure to provide proper oxygen therapy for residents, which raises concerns about adherence to care standards. Additionally, the kitchen conditions were noted to be unsanitary, with dirty cooking equipment and a lack of proper food storage. While the lack of fines is a positive aspect, the increasing number of deficiencies and concerning staffing levels highlight significant areas for improvement.
- Trust Score
- C
- In Florida
- #315/690
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 65% 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 ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 26 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Florida. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 21 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
19pts above Florida avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
17 points above Florida average of 48%
The Ugly 21 deficiencies on record
Apr 2025
9 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure resident assessment accurately reflects the resident's sta...
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** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) was accura...
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 observation, interviews and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive care plan for 1 (Resident #70) of 6 resident reviewed for medication management and 1 (...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure care and treatment was provided in accordance with professional standards of practice for 2 (Resident #84, #395) of...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Laboratory Services
(Tag F0770)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure physician ordered laboratory services were completed for 1 (Resident #59) of 6 residents reviewed for medication regimen.
Finding...
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
Based on observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to maintain complete and accurately documented medical records for 3 (Resident #84, #395, and #70) of 12 residents reviewed fo...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3) During the initial tour on 4/14/25 at 10:12 AM, a housekeeping aide was observed to have just left the room of Resident #62. ...
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
Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure respiratory care and services were provided in accordance with professional standards of practice for 3 (Resident #...
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, and record review, the facility failed to ensure food was safely stored, dated in a manner that preserves the nutritional value, and sanitation was maintained in the...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2025
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
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents received services as ordered by physician for 1 of 3 sampled residents, Resident #1.
Findings include:
During an intervie...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2024
4 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents received care and services in accordance with professional standards of practice for 1 of 4 residents with g...
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 observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff performed hand hygiene during medication administration to help prevent the possible spread of infection and com...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Unnecessary Medications
(Tag F0759)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the medication error rate was not 5 percent or greater. The medication error rate was 20 percent.
Findings include:
D...
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, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the drugs and biologicals were stored and labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles in 3 o...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2022
7 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
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents received services with reasonable accommodation of needs for 1 of 3 residents observed for accommodation of needs, Residen...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
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 the residents received care for peripherally i...
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 maintain complete and accurately documented medical r...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0582
(Tag F0582)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure 2 of 3 residents discharged from Medicare Part A Skilled Services, Residents #340 and #52, were provided the Skilled Nursing Facilit...
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** 3. During an observation on 8/1/2022 at 8:38 AM, Resident #20's oxygen delivery tubing was dated 7/17/2022.
During an observatio...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program to prevent the possible development and transmission of communicable dis...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety.
Findings include:
During the initial tour of th...
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.
- • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Florida facilities.
- • 21 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
- • Grade C (55/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
- • 65% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
About This Facility
What is Avante At Leesburg, Inc's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns AVANTE AT LEESBURG, INC 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 Avante At Leesburg, Inc Staffed?
CMS rates AVANTE AT LEESBURG, INC's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 65%, which is 19 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 92%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.
What Have Inspectors Found at Avante At Leesburg, Inc?
State health inspectors documented 21 deficiencies at AVANTE AT LEESBURG, INC during 2022 to 2025. These included: 21 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates Avante At Leesburg, Inc?
AVANTE AT LEESBURG, INC 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 AVANTE CENTERS, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 116 certified beds and approximately 96 residents (about 83% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in LEESBURG, Florida.
How Does Avante At Leesburg, Inc Compare to Other Florida Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Florida, AVANTE AT LEESBURG, INC's overall rating (3 stars) is below the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (65%) 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 Avante At Leesburg, Inc?
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 Avante At Leesburg, Inc Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, AVANTE AT LEESBURG, INC 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 Avante At Leesburg, Inc Stick Around?
Staff turnover at AVANTE AT LEESBURG, INC is high. At 65%, the facility is 19 percentage points above the Florida average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 92%. 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 Avante At Leesburg, Inc Ever Fined?
AVANTE AT LEESBURG, INC 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 Avante At Leesburg, Inc on Any Federal Watch List?
AVANTE AT LEESBURG, INC 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.