AVIATA AT GRAND OAKS
Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.
Aviata at Grand Oaks has received a Trust Grade of F, which indicates significant concerns about its quality of care. Ranking #320 out of 690 facilities in Florida places it in the top half, while being #2 out of 2 in Flagler County suggests there is only one local option that is better. The facility is showing an improving trend, having reduced its issues from 7 in 2024 to just 2 in 2025. Staffing is a weakness, with a rating of 2 out of 5 stars and turnover at 44%, which is average but indicates some instability. Additionally, $15,646 in fines is typical for the state, yet there are serious concerns about RN coverage, which is less than 94% of other facilities, meaning residents may miss essential care. Specific incidents raise red flags, including a critical failure to provide CPR to a resident who had requested resuscitation, which ultimately led to their death. Another concern involved the facility not having a proper water management program to prevent Legionella, putting residents with weakened immune systems at risk. While there are strengths, such as a quality measure rating of 5 out of 5, families should carefully consider these serious weaknesses when researching this nursing home.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Florida
- #320/690
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 44% turnover. Near Florida's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ⚠ Watch
- $15,646 in fines. Higher than 76% of Florida facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 21 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Florida. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 20 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 (44%)
4 points below Florida average of 48%
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%)
Typical for the industry
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 20 deficiencies on record
May 2025
2 deficiencies
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0645
(Tag F0645)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interviews, and a review of facility policies and procedures, the facility failed to ensure that residen...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on interviews, record review, and a review of the facility's policies and procedures, the facility failed to implement a comprehensive water management program for the purpose of reducing the ri...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2024
2 deficiencies
2 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
Deficiency F0578
(Tag F0578)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on a review of resident records, facility reports, staff interviews, and the facility's policies and procedures titled Adv...
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
Deficiency F0678
(Tag F0678)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on a review of resident records, facility reports, staff interviews, and the facility's policy and procedure titled Florid...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2024
5 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, staff interviews, and a review of the facility's Maintenance policy and procedure, the facility failed to ensure maintenance was provided to maintain a safe, clean, and comforta...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0638
(Tag F0638)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record reviews and staff interviews, the facility failed to assess a resident using the quarterly review instrument specified by the State and approved by CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medica...
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, record review, interviews, and a review of the facility's Oxygen Therapy policy and procedure, the facility failed to ensure oxygen was administered at the physician-ordered flo...
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** Based on observations, resident and staff interviews, medical record review, and a review of facility policies and procedures, t...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0924
(Tag F0924)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**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 equip corridors with f...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2022
11 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
Based on observations, interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to treat one (Resident #1) of 46 sampled residents with respect and dignity in a manner and in an environment that pr...
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 a review of resident records and interviews with staff, the facility failed to obtain a Level 2 Preadmission Screening ...
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
Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to provide personal grooming for one (Resident #30) of a sample of 46 residents. Resident #30 was dependent on staff for care, and his fingern...
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 record review, observation and interviews, the facility failed to ensure provision of care and treatment in accordance with professional standards of practice for one (Resident #256) of 46 re...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents with limited range of motion received the ap...
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 ensure that a resident who required respiratory care, was provided such care, consistent with professional standards of pr...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0697
(Tag F0697)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, medical record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure that pain ma...
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, interviews, medical record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to store all drugs and biologicals in locked compartments for two (Residents #39 and #94) resid...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Garbage Disposal
(Tag F0814)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, interviews and facility policy review, the facility failed to dispose of garbage and refuse properly.
The findings include:
An observation of the dumpster was made on 3/2/2022 ...
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 during four of four days, record reviews, and interviews, the facility failed to provide a safe, clean, co...
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 observations, interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety, by f...
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
- • 44% turnover. Below Florida's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 2 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 20 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $15,646 in fines. Above average for Florida. Some compliance problems on record.
- • Grade F (39/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Aviata At Grand Oaks's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns AVIATA AT GRAND OAKS 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 Grand Oaks Staffed?
CMS rates AVIATA AT GRAND OAKS's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 44%, compared to the Florida average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care. RN turnover specifically is 75%, 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 Grand Oaks?
State health inspectors documented 20 deficiencies at AVIATA AT GRAND OAKS during 2022 to 2025. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) 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 Grand Oaks?
AVIATA AT GRAND OAKS 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 104 residents (about 87% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in PALM COAST, Florida.
How Does Aviata At Grand Oaks Compare to Other Florida Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Florida, AVIATA AT GRAND OAKS's overall rating (3 stars) is below the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (44%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Aviata At Grand Oaks?
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 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 Immediate Jeopardy citations and the below-average staffing rating.
Is Aviata At Grand Oaks Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, AVIATA AT GRAND OAKS has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 3-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 Grand Oaks Stick Around?
AVIATA AT GRAND OAKS has a staff turnover rate of 44%, 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 Grand Oaks Ever Fined?
AVIATA AT GRAND OAKS has been fined $15,646 across 2 penalty actions. This is below the Florida average of $33,235. 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 Grand Oaks on Any Federal Watch List?
AVIATA AT GRAND OAKS 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.