AVIATA AT UNIVERSITY HILLS
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Aviata at University Hills in Pensacola, Florida, has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about its operations and care quality. Ranking #472 out of 690 facilities in Florida places it in the bottom half, and it is ranked #14 out of 15 in Escambia County, meaning there are only a few local options that are better. The facility's situation is worsening, with issues increasing from 6 in 2023 to 7 in 2024. Staffing is a notable weakness, rated at 2 out of 5 stars, with a high turnover rate of 69%, significantly above the state average, indicating instability among caregivers. Additionally, the facility has been fined $71,752, which is higher than 85% of Florida facilities, raising concerns about compliance with health and safety regulations. Specific incidents have highlighted serious deficiencies, including a failure to implement a care plan for a resident at risk of elopement, which led to that resident leaving the facility unnoticed, creating a serious safety risk. There were also failures in adequately supervising vulnerable residents, allowing one to exit the building without staff awareness. While the facility shows a decent quality measure rating of 4 out of 5 stars, the critical safety and oversight issues present a concerning picture for families considering this home for their loved ones.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Florida
- #472/690
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 69% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $71,752 in fines. Lower than most Florida facilities. Relatively clean record.
- 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
- 18 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
Below Florida average (3.2)
Below average - review inspection findings carefully
23pts above Florida avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Well above median ($33,413)
Moderate penalties - review what triggered them
21 points above Florida average of 48%
The Ugly 18 deficiencies on record
Sept 2024
7 deficiencies
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based upon interviews, observations, and record reviews the facility failed to implement the care plan to meet the nursing and p...
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 observations, interviews, and review of the electronic medical records (EMR), the facility failed to provide necessary range of motion services for 1 of 4 residents sampled for range of motio...
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 staff interviews, record review, and the facilities' policy and procedures, the facility failed to maintain ongoing communication and collaboration with the dialysis center regarding dialysis...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based upon record review and interviews, the facility failed to provide scheduled medications for 1 of 20 residents reviewed for...
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 observations, staff interviews, review of the electronic medical record (EMR), and review of the facility policies and procedures, the facility failed to provide safe and secure storage of me...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0919
(Tag F0919)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the Resident Call lights were functional to allow residents ...
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** room [ROOM NUMBER]
During an observation of room [ROOM NUMBER] on 09/16/24 at 11:13 AM, there was noted a black colored film in ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2023
3 deficiencies
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** Resident # 37
A review of Resident #37's electronic medical record revealed that the resident was admitted with a Level I PASAR...
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 observations, record reviews, and interviews, the facility failed to implement the care plan for behavior monitoring for psychotropic medications for 1 of 5 residents sampled for unnecessary ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Menu Adequacy
(Tag F0803)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, record reviews, and interviews, the facility failed to provide dietary services to meet the needs for 1 of 1 resident selected for food services. (Resident #22)
The findings in...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2023
3 deficiencies
3 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
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews, clinical record review and policy review, the facility failed to develop and implement a compr...
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, staff interviews, resident interview, responsible party interview, clinical record review and policy revie...
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
QAPI Program
(Tag F0867)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
Based on staff interviews, clinical record review, review of the quality assurance performance improvement plan, and policy review, the facility failed to implement their corrective action plan for mo...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2022
4 deficiencies
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Deficiency F0760
(Tag F0760)
A resident was harmed · 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 residents were free from significant medication errors for ...
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
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations and interviews the facility failed to maintain a safe and homelike environment for 1 of 3 areas observed (the kitchen).
The findings include:
On 12/20/22 an observation was made...
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
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, interviews and facility policy review the facility failed to provide food preparation in a safe manner for 1 of 2 meal preparations observed (dinner meal).
The findings include...
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
QAPI Program
(Tag F0867)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, interviews, quality assurance performance improvement plan review, and policy review the facility failed to implement their corrective action plan for monitoring of the kitchen ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2022
1 deficiency
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 reviews and interviews, the facility failed to implement a plan of care for 1 of 5 residents sampled for unnecessary medication review (#79).
The findings include:
On 2/2/22 a record r...
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?"
- "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
- • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 3 life-threatening violation(s), 1 harm violation(s), $71,752 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 18 deficiencies on record, including 3 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $71,752 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 University Hills's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns AVIATA AT UNIVERSITY HILLS 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 University Hills Staffed?
CMS rates AVIATA AT UNIVERSITY HILLS's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 69%, which is 23 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 64%, 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 University Hills?
State health inspectors documented 18 deficiencies at AVIATA AT UNIVERSITY HILLS during 2022 to 2024. These included: 3 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 1 that caused actual resident harm, and 14 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 University Hills?
AVIATA AT UNIVERSITY HILLS is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 120 certified beds and approximately 112 residents (about 93% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in PENSACOLA, Florida.
How Does Aviata At University Hills Compare to Other Florida Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Florida, AVIATA AT UNIVERSITY HILLS's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (69%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Aviata At University Hills?
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?" "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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations, the facility's high staff turnover rate, and the below-average staffing rating.
Is Aviata At University Hills Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, AVIATA AT UNIVERSITY HILLS has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 3 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 University Hills Stick Around?
Staff turnover at AVIATA AT UNIVERSITY HILLS is high. At 69%, the facility is 23 percentage points above the Florida average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 64%. 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 University Hills Ever Fined?
AVIATA AT UNIVERSITY HILLS has been fined $71,752 across 10 penalty actions. This is above the Florida average of $33,796. Fines in this range indicate compliance issues significant enough for CMS to impose meaningful financial consequences. Common causes include delayed correction of deficiencies, repeat violations, or care failures affecting resident safety. Families should ask facility leadership what changes have been made since these penalties.
Is Aviata At University Hills on Any Federal Watch List?
AVIATA AT UNIVERSITY HILLS 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.