1420 South Oak Street, Melbourne, FL 32901 · Brevard County · (321) 723-3215
110 certified beds, about 91 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1989
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 105671 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on February 14, 2025, inspectors cited 12 health deficiencies (the Florida average is 7.1, the national average 9.2).
Of 38 health citations since July 2021, 5 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (3 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 2 fines totaling $87,952 in the last three years; the largest was $46,176, and the latest is dated April 10, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.60 hours per resident per day, against 3.82 across Florida and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.46 of those hours.
36.0% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Florida average 41.4%).
CMS links it to Avante Centers, an affiliated group of 11 nursing homes.
Federal rules call for a standard inspection at least every 15 months, plus a visit whenever a complaint is filed. Each mark below is one citation, colored by how serious inspectors rated it. How to read a citation.
Under each citation, the quoted text is the inspector's own summary from the federal statement of deficiencies (CMS form 2567), word for word apart from a privacy scrub; CMS removes residents' and staff names before it publishes the text. The full notes are on Medicare.gov.
CMS rates every citation by how much harm it caused (rows) and how many residents it touched (columns). The count in each box is this home's, across all 38 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide intravenous (IV) care and services per standards of practice and plan of care for 3 of 3 residents reviewed for IV care, (#4, #5, and #6), of a total sample of 9 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain accurate documentation for Intravenous (IV) catheter dressing change for 1 out of 3 sampled residents with IV lines, (#5), of a total sample of 9 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility neglected to ensure pre-operative testing was completed timely and per physician's orders for scheduled surgical removal of a musculoskeletal (muscle/bone) device (external fixator) for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for neglect, of a total sample of 4 residents, (#1). External fixators are metal devices attached to the bones of the arm, leg or foot with pins or wires from outside the body. Threaded pins or wires pass through the skin and muscles and are inserted into the bone, (retrieved from International Center for Limb Lengthening at limblength.org on 4/11/2025). Infection after fracture fixation (IAFF) in orthopedic surgery is a dreaded complication, leading to non-union, loss of function, and even amputation, (retrieved from pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov on 4/11/2025).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to timely assist and provide post-operative follow up transportation for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for Administration, of a total sample of 4 residents, (#1).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide food to accommodate residents' preferences for 4 of 43 sampled residents, (#77, #403, #34, and #59).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, and interview, the facility failed to serve food items in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Specifically, potentially hazardous food items were held and served while in the temperature danger zone having the potential to affect 95 of the 98 residents at the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the binding arbitration agreement explicitly granted the resident or their representative the right to rescind the agreement within 30 calendar days of signing it for 18 of 102 current residents who signed arbitration agreements.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain records, monitor, and effectively conduct Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI)/Quality Assurance and Assessment (QAA) activities which could affect facility wide processes impacting quality of care and quality of life for all residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, and interview, the facility failed to provide a homelike environment for residents who ate in the dining rooms on the two (North and South) nursing units. This affected all residents who chose to eat in the nursing unit's dining areas, which varied from approximately 8-20 residents per meal of the 98 residents at the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to conduct medication self-administration assessments to ensure safety for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for self-administration of medications, of a total sample of 43 residents (#49, and #305).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a call light device was within reach for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for accommodation of needs, of a total sample of 43 residents, (#52).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to complete a new Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASSAR) level I screen to ensure additional mental health services were not required for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for PASSAR, of a total sample of 43 residents, (#62).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, facility failed to ensure nurses followed physician's orders to monitor fingerstick blood glucose for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for change of condition, of a total sample of 43 residents, (#93).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to monitor identified weight loss and impaired nutrition risk for 2 residents (#52, #15); and failed to properly monitor the clinical condition for 1 resident, (#34), out of 7 residents reviewed for nutrition, of a total sample of 43 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide emergency equipment available for accidental extubation for a resident on mechanical ventilation with a tracheostomy (trach) per nursing standards of practice for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for tracheostomy, of a total sample of 40 residents, (#22).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to obtain insulin medications timely for 1 of 26 residents reviewed for medication administration, of a total sample of 43 residents, (#93).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure respiratory therapy was provided as per physician orders for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for respiratory care, of a total sample of 5 residents, (#4).
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a vulnerable, cognitively impaired resident had adequate supervision for outside medical appointments, to prevent the potential for accidents, and elopement for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for accidents of a total sample of 6 residents, (#1).
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident's representative was notified of a change in condition pertaining to multiple falls for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for falls of a total sample of 6 residents, (#1).
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure medical records were complete and accurate for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for resident to resident abuse of a total sample of 6 residents, (#9).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to protect the resident's right to be free from neglect by not ensuring staff fully processed and implemented physician's orders for immediate care and ensure provision of necessary care and services and failed to complete a thorough investigation for possible neglect for 2 of 6 residents, reviewed for Quality of Care and Treatment of a total sample of 6 residents, (#1, #6). On [DATE], resident #1 was readmitted back to the facility from the hospital. The facility had transferred the resident to the hospital on [DATE] where she was diagnosed with severe health care associated pneumonia and sepsis, a serious blood infection with a high risk for total organ failure and death, (retrieved from www.mayoclinic.org on [DATE]). While hospitalized for the next two weeks, she required intensive care and a machine to breathe. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure physician orders for immediate care were fully processed and implemented to ensure provision of necessary care and services for 2 of 6 residents reviewed for Quality of Care and Treatment of a total sample of 6 residents, (#1, #6). On [DATE], resident #1 was readmitted back to the facility from the hospital. The facility had transferred the resident to the hospital on [DATE] where she was diagnosed with severe health care associated pneumonia and sepsis, a serious blood infection with a high risk for total organ failure and death, (retrieved from www.mayoclinic.org on [DATE]). While hospitalized for the next two weeks, she required intensive care and a machine to breathe. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure licensed nurses were knowledgeable and competent with skill sets to fully process physician orders for immediate care of a post hospitalized resident with high risk health conditions for 2 of 6 vulnerable residents of a total sample of 6 residents, (#1, #6). On [DATE], resident #1 was readmitted back to the facility from the hospital. The facility had transferred the resident to the hospital on [DATE] where she was diagnosed with severe health care associated pneumonia and sepsis, a serious blood infection with a high risk for total organ failure and death, (retrieved from www.mayoclinic.org on [DATE]). While hospitalized for the next two weeks, she required intensive care and a machine to breathe. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to timely report possible neglect for 1 of 6 residents reviewed for Administration of a total sample of 6 residents, (#1).
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to thoroughly investigate and identify possible neglect for 1 of 6 residents reviewed for Administration, of a total sample of 6 residents, (#1).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure critical medications were obtained for 2 of 6 residents reviewed for Quality of Care and Treatment, of a total sample of 6 residents, (#1, #6).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to review or revise the individualized smoking safety plan of care for 2 out of 4 residents reviewed for care plans, from a total sample of 35 residents, (#18, #21).
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to involve resident in Care Plan Meetings for 1 of 1 resident out of a total sample of 35 residents, (#22).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement the process to ensure resident's wishes related to advance directives were accurately recorded for 1 of 1 sampled residents out of a total sample of 35 residents, (#22).
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to complete a Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) for newly evident possible Serious Mental Illness (SMI) for 2 of 2 sampled residents from a total sample of 35 residents, (#81, #7).
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure Pre-admission Screen and Resident Review (PASRR) was completed prior to admission or as soon as identified after admission for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for Pre-admission Screen and Resident Review out of a total sample of 35 residents, (#2)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement orthopedic follow up care and services for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for rehabilitation and restorative from a total sample of 35 residents, (#90).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide intravenous (IV) care and services according to standards of practice and plan of care for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for IV care out of total 35 sampled residents, (#445).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to honor resident preferences and follow dietary orders for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for food concerns from a total sample of 35 residents, (#23).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure proper disposal of sharps in a puncture-resistant sharps container for 1 of 1 resident out of a total sample of 35 (#29).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to provide nail care for 1 of 5 dependent residents reviewed for Activities of Daily Living (ADL) care of a total sample of 34 residents, (#442).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure oxygen (O2) therapy was administered as per physician orders for 1 of 3 residents and failed to obtain a physician's order for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for oxygen in a total sample of 34 residents, (#441 & #5).
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Medication Administration Record (MAR) was accurately completed for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications of a total of 34 sampled residents, (#10).
6 fire safety citations on file: 2 on February 14, 2025, 4 on July 29, 2021.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| April 10, 2025 | Fine | $46,176 |
| November 17, 2023 | Fine | $41,776 |
| November 17, 2023 | Payment Denial | 34 days from December 28, 2023 |
A payment denial means Medicare and Medicaid stopped paying for new admissions for that period.
Hours of care per resident per day, from the payroll records every home sends CMS. Higher means more staff time with each resident.
| Measure | This home | Florida | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 3.60 | 3.82 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.46 | 0.73 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.28 | 3.49 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.18 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.96 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 36.0% | 41.4% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 28.6% | 46.0% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 3.58 hours a day for residents as sick as this home's (its case-mix figure). The staffing star compares the two.
Every nursing home sends CMS its staff hours for each day (the Payroll Based Journal). Here they are added up by quarter. The latest quarter is the one behind the figures above. In January to March 2026, nursing staff hours per resident were 3.73 on weekdays and 3.28 on weekends, 12% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 1.3% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.48 in April to June 2025 to 3.60 in January to March 2026.
| Quarter | All nursing staff | Registered nurses | Weekdays | Weekends | Contract staff share | Days with no RN hours | Residents a day |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.60 | 0.46 | 3.73 | 3.28 | 1.3% | 0 of 90 | 91 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.61 | 0.47 | 3.71 | 3.34 | 0.5% | 0 of 92 | 94 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.41 | 0.50 | 3.51 | 3.14 | 0.7% | 0 of 92 | 98 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.48 | 0.56 | 3.60 | 3.18 | 0.8% | 0 of 91 | 96 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Florida, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.76 | 0.70 | 3.90 | 3.44 | 1.1% | 0.2% of days |
Hours per resident per day: staff hours in the quarter divided by resident days (the daily census CMS derives from resident assessments). Registered nurses include the director of nursing and RNs with administrative duties; aides include nurse aides in training and medication aides, as in CMS's own staffing measure. How these are calculated.
Staff pay reports
No staff pay figure for this home has passed review yet. A figure appears only after at least 5 reports from at least 3 different people, sent over at least 60 days, have passed review. If you work here, your report helps start one.
| Job | Median | Middle half | Employed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Florida, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $18.03 | $17.33 to $20.34 | 96,960 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $29.70 | $28.14 to $31.11 | 38,620 |
| Registered nurses | $40.48 | $37.82 to $48.64 | 229,940 |
| United States, nursing care facilities | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $20.67 | $17.91 to $22.55 | 534,270 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $33.86 | $30.05 to $37.40 | 188,210 |
| Registered nurses | $41.11 | $37.85 to $47.68 | 142,270 |
Hourly wages; the middle half runs from the 25th to the 75th percentile. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, May 2025. BLS has no separate estimate for medication aides. These are survey estimates for whole occupations, not figures for any one home.
The measures CMS uses for the quality star. Lower is better for every one of them.
| Measure | This home | Florida | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.7 | 8.7 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.7 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.9 | 2.5 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.1 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.3 | 9.5 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 7.2 | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.7 | 8.6 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 15.7 | 26.1 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 12.1 | 9.1 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.9 | 2.1 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.8 | 1.1 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Avante at Melbourne Inc's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (50.0% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
50.0% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · Florida: 169 better, 109 worse
Rate of successful return to home or community from a SNF (risk-standardized discharge to community rate). Higher is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 93 eligible stays.
11.2% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Florida: 2 better, 35 worse
Rate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 134 eligible stays.
7.7% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 7.1% · Florida: 6 better, 21 worse
Percentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2023 to September 2024. 53 eligible stays.
50.0% this home
Median of homes: Florida55.1% · US 56.6%
Percentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 50 residents counted.
1.2% this home
Median of homes: Florida0.6% · US 0.0%
Percentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay. Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 82 residents counted.
0.0% this home
Median of homes: Florida1.3% · US 1.7%
Percentage of residents with pressure ulcers or pressure injuries that are new or worsened (adjusted rate). Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 82 residents counted.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Median of homes: Florida97.7% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 5 residents counted.
Source: CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program - Provider Data, released 2026-09-30. Better, no different and worse are CMS's own comparisons with the national rate, after adjusting for how sick residents were. Medians of homes and the state counts are worked out by us from the same file.
Legal business name: AVANTE AT MELBOURNE, INC.. CMS links this home to Avante Centers, a group of 11 nursing homes averaging 2.5 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ag Holdings, Inc. | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 08/17/2000 |
| Debbie Klurman 1994 Trust | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 8% | 06/20/1989 |
| Deena Klurman Kranz 2000 Trust | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 8% | 06/20/1989 |
| Mona Mizrachi 1994 Trust | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 8% | 06/20/1989 |
| Sisel Klurman 2001 Revocable Trust | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 25% | 04/09/2010 |
| Biegasiewicz, Kimberly | Corporate director | Individual | 02/04/2022 | |
| Biegasiewicz, Kimberly | Corporate officer | Individual | 02/04/2022 | |
| Hornack, John | Corporate officer | Individual | 04/24/2019 | |
| Biegasiewicz, Kimberly | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/04/2022 | |
| Caiati, Denise | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/01/2026 | |
| Chopra, Shawn | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/01/2026 |
As listed in the CMS ownership file, which names owners with a 5% or greater stake and the people and companies with operational or managerial control.
Chosen from this home's own inspection record.
These are the official offices in Florida. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.