Home / Pennsylvania / Harrisburg
1205 South 28th Street, Harrisburg, PA 17111 · Dauphin County · (717) 565-7000
404 certified beds, about 356 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1967
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 395074 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on May 14, 2026, inspectors cited 3 health deficiencies (the Pennsylvania average is 10, the national average 9.2).
Of 36 health citations since October 2023, 4 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 4 fines totaling $71,906 in the last three years; the largest was $37,113, and the latest is dated May 1, 2026.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.23 hours per resident per day, against 3.89 across Pennsylvania and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.59 of those hours.
36.4% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Pennsylvania average 44.5%).
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 36 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, observations, facility document review, resident and staff interviews, and facility policy review, it was determined that the facility displayed past non-compliance by failing to implement interventions, supervision, and effective safety measures to prevent elopement of a resident identified as being at risk for elopement and exhibiting exit seeking behaviors (Resident 334). This failure resulted in an immediate jeopardy situation for Resident 334 as evidenced by an elopement from the facility to the airport.
Inspectors wroteBased on policy review, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a discharge summary was completed in a timely manner for one of three closed record charts reviewed (Resident 375).
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy review, clinical record review, observations, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents receive necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, for one of 35 residents reviewed (Resident 379).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, review of facility investigation, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility displayed past non-compliance in its failure to provide adequate assistance devices during a transfer, which resulted in harm as evidenced by a dislocated shoulder requiring surgical repair for one of five residents reviewed (Resident 1).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the resident received care, consistent with professional standards of practice, to treat pressure ulcers for one of five residents reviewed (Resident 1). Findings Include:Review of Resident 1's clinical record revealed diagnoses that included unstageable sacral pressure ulcer (localized damage to the skin and/or underlying soft tissue usually over a bony prominence or related to a medical or other device. Unstageable-obscured full-thickness skin and tissue loss) and stroke. Review of Resident 1's wound assessment report, dated November 4, 2025, revealed treatment recommendations to cleanse the wound (pressure ulcer) with normal saline, apply medical grade honey to the base of the wound, and secure with silicone bordered super-absorb. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, hospital records, facility documents, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to monitor residents and provide care and services during elevated temperatures in resident care areas, resulting in actual harm as evidenced by hyperthermia and respiratory distress for one of eight residents reviewed (Resident 1).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, facility policy review, clinical record review, Center for Disease Control (CDC) guidelines, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure staff implemented infection control policies to prevent the spread of infection for three of six residents on transmission based precautions reviewed (Residents 212, 277, and 554) and one of five residents observed for medication administration (Resident 171). Findings Include: Facility policy, Isolation precautions, revised September 2022, read, in part, when a resident is placed on Transmission-Based Precautions (TBP), appropriate notification is placed on the room entrance door and on the front of the chart so that personnel and visitors are aware of the need for and type of precaution. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, resident and staff interviews, and observations, it was determined that the facility failed to provide residents access to grievance forms for three of eight areas identified ([NAME] 2, [NAME] 3, and [NAME] 4). Findings Include: Review of the facility policy, titled Grievance Process Procedure with a last review date of March 2025, revealed 1. All concerns and questions may be presented to any staff member. Concern forms/boxes are available on South 1, South 2, South 3, South 4, [NAME] 1, [NAME] 2, [NAME] 3, [NAME] 4. During the resident group meeting conducted on April 15, 2025, at 11:00 AM, with eight residents (Residents 48, 59, 77, 94, 215, 230, 244, and 337) revealed that residents are not able to file grievances anonymously due to having to ask staff to get them a blank grievance form behind the nurse's station. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy review, clinical record review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the comprehensive care plan was revised to include changes in the resident's status and plan of care for two of 38 residents reviewed (Residents 148 and 290).
Inspectors wroteBased on a group meeting with residents, observations, review of facility documentation, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide for an ongoing program of activities designed to meet the interests and physical, mental and psychosocial well-being of the residents for four of eight resident areas (South 2, 3, 4, and [NAME] 4).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record and staff and resident interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure care and services were provided in accordance with professional standards of practice that met each resident's physical, mental, and psychosocial needs for one of 38 residents reviewed (Resident 333).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure each resident receives proper treatment to maintain vision abilities for one of 38 residents reviewed (Resident 290).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility incident report review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the resident receives adequate supervision to prevent accidents for one of 38 residents reviewed (Resident 339).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure residents are assessed and receive appropriate treatment and services for removal of a foley catheter as soon as possible for one of nine residents reviewed (Resident 339).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of select food service committee meeting minutes, observation, one meal test tray, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide foods that are palatable, attractive, and at appetizing temperatures at one of one meal observed.
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy review, observations, clinical record review, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure sufficient nursing staff to provide nursing and related services to assure resident safety and attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident for one of 10 residents reviewed (Resident 2).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of select facility grievances, review of the menu and select facility recipes, observation, completion of one meal test tray, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide foods that are palatable, attractive, and at appetizing temperatures at one of one meal observed.
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy review, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in the main kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, review of facility investigation, observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility displayed past non-compliance in its failure to provide adequate supervision to prevent elopement, which resulted in harm, as evidenced by a fall and knee abrasion for one of four resident's reviewed (Resident 1).
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy review, clinical record review, facility provided documentation review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility displayed past non-compliance in its failure to properly secure controlled medications which resulted in missing controlled medications prescribed to Resident 6.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interview, record review, and policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a resident was free from financial exploitation for one of three residents reviewed (Resident 1).
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interviews, facility document review, clinical record review, and policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to follow the facility policy for reporting and investigating resident exploitation to prevent further exploitation during the investigation for one of three residents reviewed (Resident 1).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to notify the representative of the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman of resident transfers in writing to include the reason for the transfer or discharge, date of transfer, and location of transfer, for four of ten resident records reviewed for hospitalizations (Residents 7, 13, 35, and 101).
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy review, observations, clinical record reviews, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan to address the resident's medical, physical, mental, and psychosocial needs for two of 39 records reviewed (Residents 57 and 185).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policies, observations, record reviews, and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to provide respiratory care/oxygen services consistent with professional standards of practice for four of 39 residents reviewed (Residents 13, 57, 139, and 605).
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor observations, facility policy, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to discard expired medications for one of eight medication carts (S2) observed and failed to place opened dates on medications in two of eight medication carts (M3 and S2) observed. Findings Include: Review of facility policy titled, Storage of Medications, with a revision date of August 2020, read in part, medications and biologicals are stored safely, securely and properly, following manufacturer's recommendations or those of the supplier. General Guidance, 8. Outdated, contaminated, or deteriorated medications and those in containers that are cracked, soiled, or without secure closures are immediately removed from inventory, disposed of according to procedures for medication disposal, and reordered from the pharmacy if a current order exists. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy, observations, and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that care and services were provided in a manner that enhanced resident dignity for one of 35 residents observed (Resident 76).
Inspectors wroteBased on resident interview, observation, clinical record review, facility document review, and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to provide a homelike environment, including a secured lock drawer for personal items, for one of 35 residents reviewed (Resident 88).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the resident assessment accurately reflected the resident's status for three of 39 residents reviewed (Resident 57, 139, and 168).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, resident interviews, observations, resident group interviews, facility policy review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide adequate staffing levels to provide a timely response to call bell requests for six of eight units (Main 1, Main 2, South 1, South 2, South 3, and South 4).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the menus were followed and a substitution was provided for a dessert not available at one of one meals observed.
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy reviews, observations, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to store food and utilize equipment in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in the main kitchen and on eight of eight nursing unit pantry areas.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, document review and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the resident is refunded all monies within thirty days of discharge from the facility for one of one residents reviewed for billing and accounting services (Resident 3 ). Findings Include: Review of Resident 3's clinical record revealed an admission date to the facility as August 11, 2023. The clinical record also revealed Resident 3 passed away on October 14, 2023. Review of the facility's form titled Refund Request Form, dated March 19, 2024 submitted to the facility's Corporate Office, revealed a request that a refund be issued to Resident 3's spouse in the amount of $6210.00 due to an overpayment to the facility due to the death of Resident 3. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents receive treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice and the comprehensive person-centered plan of care for one of six residents reviewed (Resident 4). Findings Include: Review of Resident 4's clinical record revealed diagnoses that included Diabetes Mellitus Type II ( A long-term condition in which the body has trouble controlling blood sugar and using it for energy) and a pressure ulcer to his heel/foot. Review of Resident 4's physician orders revealed a verbal telephone order, dated March 11, 2024, that read Hibiclens External Liquid 4% .Apply to Entire Body topically on time only for Surgery Prep until 03/26/2024 .Cleanse the entire body thoroughly with wash except face. Hibiclens is an antiseptic skin cleanser. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record, facility document review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to notify a resident representative of an accident that resulted in an emergency transfer immediately for one of three residents reviewed for falls (Resident 3).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, resident council meeting and grievance review, completion of one meal test tray, review of select facility documents, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide foods and beverages that were at an appetizing temperature at one of one meals.
40 fire safety citations on file: 13 on April 17, 2025, 17 on May 23, 2024, 10 on July 13, 2023.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| May 1, 2026 | Fine | $37,113 |
| April 9, 2026 | Fine | $17,665 |
| July 7, 2025 | Fine | $9,110 |
| October 15, 2024 | Fine | $8,018 |
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) | 3.23 | 3.89 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.59 | 0.79 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.86 | 3.53 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.85 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.80 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 36.4% | 44.5% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 40.0% | 39.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 3.31 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 3.39 on weekdays and 2.86 on weekends, 16% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 6.2% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.24 in April to June 2025 to 3.23 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 | 3.23 | 0.59 | 3.39 | 2.86 | 6.2% | 0 of 90 | 356 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.16 | 0.58 | 3.29 | 2.80 | 6.8% | 0 of 92 | 364 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.19 | 0.59 | 3.35 | 2.81 | 6.4% | 0 of 92 | 365 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.24 | 0.59 | 3.39 | 2.87 | 6.7% | 0 of 91 | 361 |
| 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.
| 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 | 7.3 | 16.8 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.4 | 0.7 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.8 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.4 | 3.1 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.4 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.3 | 17.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.0 | 4.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 24.9 | 17.7 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 22.2 | 22.5 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 12.4 | 9.5 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.9 | 1.6 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.3 | 1.2 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Spring Creek Rehabilitation and Nursing Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it worse than the national rate (27.9% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
27.9% 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. 189 eligible stays.
11.4% 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. 258 eligible stays.
6.7% 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. 150 eligible stays.
54.2% 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. 236 residents counted.
0.6% 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. 335 residents counted.
1.7% 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. 333 residents counted.
97.8% 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. 46 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: SPRING CREEK SNF LLC.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rosenzweig, Steven | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 100% | 02/01/2020 |
| Abdul, Mohamed | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/01/2025 | |
| Rosenzweig, Steven | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/01/2020 | |
| Abdul, Mohamed | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/29/2025 | |
| Pearlstein, Robert | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/29/2025 |
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.