Deficiency Index

Aviata at University Hills

Pensacola, Florida · CCN 105445

31 surveys since 2011, 17 of them producing a finding at harm level or worse.

Data as of , released by CMS on October 8, 2026. Source: CMS Provider Data Catalog.

Citations on record
125
Surveys
31
Harm or worse
17
Immediate jeopardy
3
The record, 2011–2025
’11’15’20’25
No harm recordedHarm or worseNot surveyed
Immediate jeopardy3

Findings at the most serious level CMS records.

Beyond CMS’s monthly file28/31

Older surveys no longer in CMS’s monthly file or on Care Compare. They are shown here.

The facility

Certified beds
120
Ownership
For profit - Limited Liability company
Chain
AVIATA HEALTH GROUP
County
Escambia
Medicare-certified since
1984

CMS ratings

Overall
4
Health inspection
4
Staffing
3
Quality measures
4

CMS’s own Five-Star ratings.

Compared with similar facilities

Since 2021, this facility recorded somewhat more weighted findings than its peer group.

Weighted by harm level, against 293 for-profit facilities of 100–127 beds in Florida.

Last survey on record

Dec 2, 2025

342 days ago.

Counts surveys with at least one finding. A clean survey leaves no record here, so the real gap may be shorter.

Staffing

MeasureThis facilityPeer median
Nurse hours per resident day3.263.57
Registered-nurse hours per resident day0.70—
Annual nurse turnover62.4%44.5%

As reported by the facility to CMS, beside the peer-group median.

Enforcement

Fines
$28,359 across 3 penalties

Federal civil money penalties and remedies as CMS currently publishes them. Amounts may still be under appeal.

Severity of recent findings

Citations by CMS scope and severity. Rows are harm level, columns are how widespread the finding was.
SeverityIsolatedPatternWidespread
Immediate jeopardyJ—K—L—
Actual harmG—H—I—
No harm, potential for more than minimalD981.8%E218.2%F—
No harm, potential for minimalA—B—C—
CMS’s current file: 11 of the 125 citations on record.

Most frequently cited here

In CMS’s current monthly file.

  • F6562×

    Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.

  • F9192×

    Make sure that a working call system is available in each resident's bathroom and bathing area.

  • F5841×

    Honor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.

  • F6451×

    PASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities

  • F6881×

    Provide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.

In the surveyor’s words

From the most serious findings on record at Aviata at University Hills, in the surveyor’s own words.

  • Immediate jeopardy, isolatedF656Apr 6, 2023

    Based on observation, interviews, clinical record review and policy review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for 1 of 7 residents reviewed for elopement risk. (Resident #1) On 3/2/23, an elopement risk evaluation form identified Resident #1, a cognitively impaired vulnerable resident, as at risk for elopement, however, no care plan for elopement risk was initiated. Resident #1 subsequently eloped from the facility on 3/11/23 unbeknownst to staff, placing the resident at risk for serious injury, harm, or death. The situation resulted in a finding of Immediate Jeopardy at a scope and severity of J, isolated. The facility's Administrator and the Director of Nursing were notified of the findings of Immediate Jeopardy on 4/5/23 at 4:35 PM. […]

  • Immediate jeopardy, isolatedF689Apr 6, 2023

    Based on observation, staff interviews, resident interview, responsible party interview, clinical record review and policy review, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision of a vulnerable resident and identify the resident as an elopement risk due to exit seeking and wandering behaviors for 1 of 7 residents sampled for accidents and supervision. (Resident #1) On 3/11/23, Resident #1, a cognitively impaired vulnerable resident, was able to exit the facility unbeknownst to staff. A facility staff member responded to a door alarm, looked out the window instead of exiting the facility and checking the surrounding grounds, shut the alarm off when no residents were observed, and returned to work. […]

  • Immediate jeopardy, isolatedF867Apr 6, 2023

    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 monitoring of new admissions and re-admissions for elopement risk assessments for 6 of 20 residents reviewed. (Residents #6, 9, 12, 14, 19, and 20). On 3/11/23, Resident #1, a cognitively impaired vulnerable resident, was able to exit the facility unbeknownst to staff. The facility developed an implemented an immediate corrective action plan which included reviewing 100% of new admissions to ensure a complete and accurate elopement assessment and interventions initiated as indicated. […]

  • Actual harm, isolatedF760Dec 22, 2022

    Based on interviews and record reviews the facility failed to ensure residents were free from significant medication errors for 2 of 3 residents sampled (resident #1 and # 2). Resident #1's blood sugar was not monitored per order which resulted in the resident becoming unresponsive and being transferred to the hospital with a blood sugar of 1711. Resident #2's INR (international normalized ratio) was not monitored daily as ordered which resulted in his blood clotting factor being below therapeutic range of 2-3. The findings include: Resident #1 On 12/21/22 a record review was conducted of resident # 1, which revealed that resident #1 had a history of being a brittle (severe) diabetic. […]

  • Actual harm, isolatedF656Jan 14, 2021

    Based on observation, record reviews, and interviews the facility failed to implement the plan of care for 1 of 4 residents (#24) sampled for nutrition and for 1 of 1 resident sampled for skin condition other than pressure injuries (#77). The findings include: Resident #24 A record review was conducted for resident #24 which revealed a care plan, dated 8/27/20, for Nutritional problem or potential problem related to moderate protein calorie malnutrition with the goal Resident to comply with recommended diet daily and the interventions included RD (Registered Dietician) will evaluate and make diet changes to recommendations as needed and to provide and serve diet as ordered. A review of the physician orders [REDACTED]. […]

Read 33 findings in full →The most serious and the most recent: 33 of 125 on record.

Every survey on record

FindingsAt actual harm or above

  • Dec 2, 2025Complaint1 finding
  • Sep 19, 2024Standard7 findings
  • Jun 15, 2023Standard3 findings
  • Apr 6, 2023Complaint3 findings · 3 harm
  • Dec 22, 2022Complaint5 findings · 1 harm
  • Aug 16, 2022Complaint2 findings
  • Feb 3, 2022Standard1 finding
  • Jan 14, 2021Standard4 findings · 2 harm
Show the 23 earlier surveys
  • Nov 6, 2019Complaint2 findings
  • Sep 18, 2019Complaint5 findings · 2 harm
  • Apr 19, 2019Standard and complaint15 findings · 3 harm
  • Feb 21, 2019Complaint3 findings
  • Apr 27, 2018Standard8 findings
  • Oct 3, 2017Complaint3 findings
  • Aug 24, 2017Complaint2 findings
  • Jul 7, 2017Complaint1 finding
  • May 11, 2017Standard4 findings
  • Feb 15, 2017Complaint4 findings · 4 harm
  • Oct 26, 2016Complaint1 finding
  • Jun 23, 2016Standard6 findings
  • Aug 27, 2015Standard7 findings
  • Jan 20, 2015Complaint2 findings
  • Jul 25, 2014Standard4 findings
  • Aug 2, 2013—6 findings
  • Apr 9, 2013—4 findings
  • Dec 12, 2012—3 findings
  • Oct 5, 2012—2 findings · 2 harm
  • Jun 1, 2012—6 findings
  • May 25, 2012—4 findings
  • Dec 5, 2011—2 findings
  • Jun 30, 2011—5 findings

Surveys that found no deficiencies are not in CMS’s files and do not appear here.

Comparable facilities

The nearest facilities to this one in the same peer group, by weighted findings.

Deficiency Index is independent and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or approved by CMS, Medicare, or any government agency. About this data · Report a correction