Home / Pennsylvania / Lock Haven
22 Cree Drive, Lock Haven, PA 17745 · Clinton County · (570) 748-9377
146 certified beds, about 134 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1984
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 395616 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on September 19, 2025, inspectors cited 13 health deficiencies (the Pennsylvania average is 10, the national average 9.2).
Of 50 health citations since November 2023, 2 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $14,531 in the last three years; the largest was $14,531, and the latest is dated January 9, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.28 hours per resident per day, against 3.89 across Pennsylvania and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.51 of those hours.
63.7% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Pennsylvania average 44.5%).
CMS links it to Allaire Health Services, an affiliated group of 21 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 50 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of select facility policies and procedures, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a medication was available in a timely manner for one of three residents reviewed for medication availability concerns (Resident 1).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, and resident and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide food in accordance with resident preference for three of four residents observed (Residents 2, 5, and 9).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, and staff and resident interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide the highest practical care regarding physician ordered treatments for seven of eight residents reviewed (Residents 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of select facility policies and procedures, facility documents, clinical record review, and resident and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to thoroughly investigate and report an allegation of abuse for one of five residents reviewed (Resident 4).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, facility document review, and resident and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to serve all meal ticket items for three of five residents observed (Residents 5, 6, and 7).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and resident and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide adequate housekeeping and maintenance services to ensure a clean, safe, and orderly environment on two of four nursing units (Unit 1 and Unit 4, Residents 5 and 10).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of facility documents, and resident and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide sufficient staff to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition services in the main kitchen and on two of four nursing units (Unit 4, Residents 5).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of facility documents, and resident and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide sufficient staff to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition services in the main kitchen and one of four nursing units (Unit 3, Residents 37 and 38).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain food service equipment in accordance with professional standards for food service safety and store food in a sanitary manner in the facility's main kitchen and one of two nursing unit pantries (Unit 3/4).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff and resident interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a clean, comfortable, homelike environment on four of four nursing units (Units 1, 2, 3, and 4; Residents 5, 8, 12, 14, 15, 28, 38, 71, 95, 108 115, and 129), and maintain comfortable water temperatures on two of four nursing units (Unit 1, and 4; Resident 71).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, review of select facility policies and procedures, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to thoroughly investigate a resident's injury of unknown origin for one of 29 sampled residents (Resident 14) and failed to implement an abuse prohibition policy that required a thorough investigation of prospective employee's employment history for three of five newly hired employees reviewed (Employees 3, 4, and 5). Findings The facility policy entitled Lock Haven Rehabilitation and Senior Living Abuse Policy and Procedure, last reviewed without changes in January 2025, revealed at the time of application all prospective employees will be required to submit with the application, a report of criminal history record information. The application will not be processed without a properly processed background check. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure that a resident with a limited range of motion received appropriate treatment and services to increase range of motion and/or to prevent further decrease in range of motion for two of 29 residents reviewed (Residents 9 and 17). Findings Clinical record review revealed the facility readmitted Resident 9 on June 2, 2025. Review of Resident 9's most recent MDS (Minimum Data Set, an assessment completed at specific intervals to determine care needs) dated September 7, 2025, noted staff assessed Resident 9 as having impairment to his range of motion (ROM, movement of the body to maintain a resident's ability) of his bilateral lower extremities. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documentation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that nursing staff possessed the appropriate competencies and skill sets related to the care and assessment of residents dressing changes for four of four employees reviewed for competencies (Employees 7, 8, 9, and 10). Findings The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) QSO-24-13-NH memo dated June 18, 2024, noted that requirements specify that the facility assessment must include an evaluation of diseases, conditions, physical or cognitive limitations of the resident population, acuity (the level of severity of residents' illnesses, physical, mental, and cognitive limitations, and conditions) and any other pertinent information about the resident population as a whole that may affect the services the facility must provide. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of Resident Council meeting minutes, resident grievances, and resident and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to resolve resident complaints regarding laundry services on three of four nursing units (Units 2, 3, and 4; Residents 5, 6, 12, 38, 93, 95, 108, and 115).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure assessments accurately reflected a resident's status for two of 29 residents reviewed (13 and 30).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, and resident and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide appropriate treatment and services regarding incontinence care for one of one resident reviewed (Residents 5).
Inspectors wroteBased on employee personnel record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to complete a performance evaluation of each nurse aide at least once every 12 months for one of two nurse aides reviewed (Employees 6).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, observation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to assist residents to obtain routine dental care for one of three residents reviewed (Resident 1).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement appropriate Transmission Based Precautions (TBP) for one of four residents reviewed on TBP (Resident 135).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of employee personnel and education records and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that each nurse aide received 12 hours of in-service training annually for one of one nurse aide reviewed (Employee 6).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to establish clear and consistent resident wishes regarding advance directives for one of six residents reviewed resulting in actual harm (Resident CR1).
Inspectors wroteBased on closed clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide the highest practicable care for a resident's change in condition that resulted in death for one of six residents reviewed causing actual harm (Resident CR1).
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interview and clinical record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a medication was available in a timely manner for two of four residents reviewed for medication availability concerns (Residents CR1 and 2).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to store and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety and sanitation to prevent the potential for food borne illness in the facility's main kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to establish clear and consistent resident wishes regarding advance directives or provide resident's an opportunity to formulate an advance directive for nine of 16 residents reviewed for advance directives (Residents 5, 14, 18, 20, 53, 61, 112, 126, and 238).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff and resident interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide adequate housekeeping and maintenance services to maintain a clean and orderly environment on three of four nursing units (Unit 1, 2, and 3; Residents 14, 18, 23, 86, 106, and 116).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of select facility policies and procedures, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide care and services identified to reduce a resident's decline in ADL's (activities of daily living) for three of three residents reviewed (Residents 29, 34, and 128).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide the highest practicable care regarding physician ordered weights and vital signs for two of 27 residents (Residents 34 and 123).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the resident or resident representative received written notice of the facility bed hold policy at the time of transfer for seven of nine residents reviewed for hospitalizations (Residents 5, 14, 35, 79, 87, 104, and 131).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan to maintain the highest practicable care for two of two residents reviewed (Residents 78 and 86). Findings Include: Clinical record review for Resident 78 revealed an annual MDS (Minimum Data Set, an assessment completed at intervals by the facility to determine care needs) dated September 6, 2024, that indicated it is somewhat important to him to have books, newspapers, and magazines, to listen to music, to be around pets, keep up with the news, and to do his favorite activity. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, review of select facility policies and procedures, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to assess and implement treatment and services to prevent the development and promote the healing of pressure ulcers for two of five residents reviewed for pressure ulcer concerns (Residents 104 and 14).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to develop and implement individualized person-centered care plans to address dementia and cognitive loss displayed by one of two residents reviewed (Resident 78).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of select facility policies, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure an environment free from the potential spread of infection for two of five residents reviewed for transmission-based precaution concerns (Residents 19 and 288).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to notify a resident and/or their responsible party in writing of a transfer to the hospital with the required information for seven of nine residents reviewed (Residents 5, 14, 35, 79, 87, 104, and 131).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff and resident interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide adequate housekeeping and maintenance services to maintain a clean and orderly environment on three of four nursing units (Unit 1, 2, and 3, Residents 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 9).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of pest control logs, and interviews with residents and staff, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program on two of four nursing units (Unit Two, Unit Three, Residents 3, 6, 1, and 2).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and resident and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide adequate housekeeping and maintenance services to ensure a clean, safe, and orderly environment on two of four nursing units (Unit 3 and 4; Residents 3, 5, 6, and 7).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records and resident and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure accurate and complete clinical documentation for three of 17 residents reviewed (Residents 2, 8, and 10).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of pest control logs, and interviews with residents and staff, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program on one of three nursing units (Unit Three, Residents 1 and 3).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of select policies and procedures and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement their abuse policy regarding reporting to the proper state agencies for misappropriation of resident property for five of 17 residents reviewed (Residents CR1, 4, 5, 6 and 7).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and staff and resident interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a clean, comfortable environment on two of four nursing units (Unit 3 and Unit 4; Residents 24, 81, 92, 119, and 124).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff and resident interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement a restorative range of motion therapy program for five of six residents reviewed (Residents 18, 79, 81, 96, and 107).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of select facility policies, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide the highest practicable care regarding physician ordered pain medications for two of four residents reviewed (Residents 29 and 40).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, clinical record review, review of select facility policies and procedures, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate below five percent (Residents 11, 62, and 88).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to store food items and maintain equipment in a safe and sanitary manner in the facility's main kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documentation, clinical record review, observation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement measures to prevent the potential spread of infections for one of five residents reviewed for infections (Resident 7) and the main laundry unit of the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, observation, and resident and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to accommodate resident needs regarding the accessibility to a call bell for one of 28 residents reviewed (Resident 62).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, observation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to store supplemental oxygen equipment per professional standards of practice for one of six residents reviewed (Resident 114).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, clinical record review, and resident and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to assess the resident for the need for side rails and risk of side rail entrapment for one of three residents reviewed (Resident 28).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to develop and implement an individualized person-centered plan to address dementia symptoms displayed by two of four residents reviewed (Residents 107 and 124).
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| January 9, 2025 | Fine | $14,531 |
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 | Pennsylvania | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 3.28 | 3.89 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.51 | 0.79 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.79 | 3.53 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.90 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.87 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 63.7% | 44.5% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 52.4% | 39.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 4.08 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 3.48 on weekdays and 2.79 on weekends, 20% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 29.4% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.73 in April to June 2025 to 3.28 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 | 3.28 | 0.51 | 3.48 | 2.79 | 29.4% | 0 of 90 | 134 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.44 | 0.48 | 3.70 | 2.78 | 34.3% | 0 of 92 | 136 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.75 | 0.54 | 4.03 | 3.05 | 26.7% | 0 of 92 | 129 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.73 | 0.52 | 3.99 | 3.07 | 30.4% | 0 of 91 | 132 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Pennsylvania, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.69 | 0.65 | 3.82 | 3.34 | 11.3% | 0.1% 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pennsylvania, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $21.44 | $18.88 to $22.52 | 67,740 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $30.74 | $29.02 to $35.01 | 38,260 |
| Registered nurses | $46.36 | $38.75 to $50.35 | 146,520 |
| 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 | Pennsylvania | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 8.6 | 16.8 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.7 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 7.4 | 3.1 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.4 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 8.8 | 17.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.4 | 4.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 15.4 | 17.7 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 22.3 | 22.5 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 9.4 | 9.5 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.5 | 1.6 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.3 | 1.2 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Lock Haven Rehabilitation and Senior Living's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it worse than the national rate (39.8% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
39.8% this home
Worse than the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · Pennsylvania: 100 better, 108 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. 130 eligible stays.
10.9% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Pennsylvania: 3 better, 9 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. 145 eligible stays.
6.5% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 7.1% · Pennsylvania: 7 better, 5 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. 79 eligible stays.
71.3% this home
Median of homes: Pennsylvania54.4% · 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. 94 residents counted.
0.9% this home
Median of homes: Pennsylvania0.0% · 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. 111 residents counted.
8.9% this home
Median of homes: Pennsylvania2.0% · 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. 111 residents counted.
100.0% this home
Median of homes: Pennsylvania100.0% · 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. 37 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: SV OPCO LLC. CMS links this home to Allaire Health Services, a group of 21 nursing homes averaging 2.7 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kurland, Dov | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 25% | 12/01/2022 |
| Aurand, James | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 12/01/2022 |
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 Pennsylvania. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.