Home / Pennsylvania / Montoursville
2140 Warrensville Road, Montoursville, PA 17754 · Lycoming County · (570) 433-3161
163 certified beds, about 137 residents a day · Non profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1993
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 395895 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on April 10, 2026, inspectors cited 11 health deficiencies (the Pennsylvania average is 10, the national average 9.2).
Of 35 health citations since November 2023, 1 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists no fines against this home in the last three years.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 4.47 hours per resident per day, against 3.89 across Pennsylvania and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.59 of those hours.
26.7% 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 35 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of select facility policies and procedures, clinical record review, personnel record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to protect a resident's right to be free from neglect by staff that resulted in actual harm with a serious injury of a fractured finger for one of six residents reviewed (Resident 1). This deficiency is cited as past noncompliance.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to store food items in a safe and sanitary manner and maintain equipment in a sanitary condition, in the main kitchen of the facility and a resident pantry area on two of seven nursing units (Nursing Units 300 and 700).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of select facility policies and procedures, clinical record review, observation, and resident and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to assess all potential risk areas for entrapment for five of six residents reviewed for accident hazards (Residents 2, 7, 12, 14, and 97).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that active physician orders incorporated resident wishes related to end-of-life care for two of four residents reviewed for advanced directives concerns (Residents 7 and 56).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of select facility policies and procedures, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to thoroughly investigate and report to the appropriate agencies an allegation of resident-to-resident physical abuse for one of 26 records reviewed (Resident 128).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and resident and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure assessments accurately reflected a resident's status for two of 26 residents reviewed (Residents 40 and 139). Findings Review of a quarterly MDS (Minimum Data Set, an assessment completed at specific intervals to determine resident care needs) dated October 26, 2025, revealed staff assessed Resident 40 as having no impairments of her lower extremities. Review of Resident 40's next quarterly MDS dated [DATE], staff assessed Resident 40 as having bilateral impairment to her lower extremities. Interview with Employee 4 (LPNAC) on April 10, 2026, at 10:55 AM revealed that Resident 40 did not have a decline in her range of motion. Employee 4 confirmed Resident 40's functional limitation in her range of motion was coded in error on the MDS dated [DATE]. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, observation, and resident and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to develop, revise, and ensure resident/resident representative participation in care plan decisions for four of 26 residents reviewed (Residents 11, 12, 82, and 139)
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and resident and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to implement treatment and assistive devices to maintain vision and hearing abilities for two of two residents reviewed for vision and hearing concerns (Residents 56 and 139).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, observation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure an environment free from the potential spread of infection related to indwelling catheter equipment for one of two residents reviewed for catheter concerns (Resident 11), respiratory equipment for one of two residents reviewed for respiratory concerns (Resident 139), and laundry processing in the facility's main laundry facilities.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of select facility policies and procedures, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain policies and procedures that each resident is offered a pneumococcal immunization per current Centers for Disease Control (CDC) guidelines; and failed to ensure that the resident's medical record included required documentation related to pneumococcal immunizations for one of five residents reviewed for immunization concerns (Resident 14).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the results of the most recent surveys were posted in a place readily accessible to residents, family members, and legal representatives in one of one area reviewed (main lobby).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to properly contain and dispose of garbage at the observed facility trash dumpster.
Inspectors wroteBased on closed clinical record review, review of facility documentation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to immediately notify a resident's representative of a change in a resident's condition for one out of three residents reviewed (Resident CR1).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of select facility policies and procedures, clinical record review, and staff and resident interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the highest practicable care for three of 35 residents reviewed (Residents 40, 230, and 94).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of select facility policies, observation, clinical record review, and staff and resident interview, it was determined that the facility failed to assess for the risk of side rail entrapment for 6 of 7 residents reviewed for accident hazards (Residents 14, 44, 85, 102, 113, and 230).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a resident's medication regime was free from potentially unnecessary medications for two of five residents reviewed (Residents 72 and 86).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to revise the comprehensive care plan for one of 35 residents reviewed (Resident 11).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of select facility policies and procedures, facility documentation, clinical record review, employee personnel record information, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that nursing staff possessed the specific competencies and skill sets related to obtaining verbal or telephone physician orders for one of one employee reviewed (Employee 3; Resident 40).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to develop and implement an individualized person-centered care plan to address dementia and cognitive loss displayed by two of four residents reviewed (Residents 86 and 89).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of select facility policies and procedures, clinical record review, and family and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to obtain routine dental services for one of three residents reviewed for dental concerns (Resident 67).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of select facility policies and procedures, observation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure an environment free from the potential spread of infection on one of six residents reviewed for infection control (Resident 83).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety and sanitation in the facility's main kitchen and three of seven nursing units (100, 300, 800).
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 29 and 82).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility policies and procedures and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to have a policy and procedure in place to address facility closure or termination of the facility's Medicare and/or Medicaid Provider Agreement.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of select facility policies and procedures, clinical record review, and staff and resident interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the administration of a COVID-19 immunization for four of five residents reviewed for immunization concerns (Residents 11, 109, 118, and 119).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, review of facility documents, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a resident was free from neglect resulting in injury for one of two residents reviewed (Resident 26).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of select facility policies, clinical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to develop and implement an abuse prohibition policy to ensure a complete and thorough investigation of an incident involving the potential for neglect for one of 27 residents reviewed (Residents 79).
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 three of 27 residents reviewed (Residents 11, 116, and 119). Findings Include: Clinical record review for Resident 116 revealed that the facility admitted her on December 8, 2023, with a diagnosis of a prolapsed vaginal vault (the top of the vagina folds into the lower vagina) after a hysterectomy (a surgical procedure to remove the uterus). Clinical record review for Resident 116 revealed consultation reports dated March 13, 2024, and June 11, 2024, that indicated she was seen by a gynecology physician to have her pessary (a device that is inserted into the vagina to prevent or control a prolapse of the vaginal vault, bladder, or uterus) checked. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to identify and assess a resident's decline in activities of daily living (ADL) for two of two residents reviewed for an ADL decline (Residents 10 and 118).
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 feeding interventions for two of 27 residents (Residents 36 and 89).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure each resident's medication regimen was free of adverse medication reactions for one of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications (Resident 50).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a resident's medication regime was free from potentially unnecessary medications for one of five residents reviewed (Resident 89).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of a medication pass observation report, review of select facility policies and procedures, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed prevent the potential spread of infection during medication administration on 1 of 7 nursing units (600 hall, Resident 29).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, review of facility documents, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to thoroughly investigate and notify the appropriate agencies of an identified incident of potential resident misappropriation of property (medication) for two of five residents reviewed (Residents 4 and 5).
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of employee competencies and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that nursing staff completed competencies and skill sets necessary to care for residents' needs for three of nine employees (Employees 1, 2, and 3; Residents 1, 2, and 3).
10 fire safety citations on file: 4 on April 10, 2026, 2 on May 23, 2025, 4 on June 20, 2024.
CMS lists no fines or payment denials against this home in the last three years. The national average is 0.9 fines per home.
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) | 4.47 | 3.89 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.59 | 0.79 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 4.01 | 3.53 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.68 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.19 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 26.7% | 44.5% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 25.0% | 39.9% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.51 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 4.65 on weekdays and 4.01 on weekends, 14% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.0% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 4.63 in April to June 2025 to 4.47 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 | 4.47 | 0.59 | 4.65 | 4.01 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 137 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 4.30 | 0.60 | 4.45 | 3.92 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 139 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 4.53 | 0.66 | 4.69 | 4.12 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 130 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 4.63 | 0.62 | 4.80 | 4.19 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 131 |
| 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 | 36.8 | 16.8 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.5 | 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 | 3.1 | 3.1 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.6 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 25.9 | 17.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.4 | 4.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 33.0 | 17.7 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 20.1 | 22.5 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 8.3 | 9.5 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.0 | 1.6 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.9 | 1.2 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Valley View Rehab and Nursing Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it worse than the national rate (38.2% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
38.2% 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. 211 eligible stays.
12.1% 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. 220 eligible stays.
6.3% 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. 123 eligible stays.
65.7% 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. 102 residents counted.
0.0% 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. 116 residents counted.
2.5% 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. 116 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. 25 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: LYCOMING COMMUNITY CARE INC.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alexander, Amy | Corporate director | Individual | 01/31/2025 | |
| Calder, Stephanie | Corporate director | Individual | 01/31/2025 | |
| Forquer, Adele | Corporate director | Individual | 01/31/2021 | |
| Leidhecker, Robin | Corporate director | Individual | 01/31/2023 | |
| McCreary, Glenn | Corporate director | Individual | 01/31/2024 | |
| Mutchler, Richard | Corporate director | Individual | 01/31/2024 | |
| Vanemon, Kimberly | Corporate director | Individual | 01/31/2025 | |
| White, Elizabeth | Corporate director | Individual | 01/31/2022 | |
| Fry, Stephen | Corporate officer | Individual | 10/29/2023 | |
| Hostrander, Amy | Corporate officer | Individual | 10/30/2017 | |
| Johnson, Taryn | Corporate officer | Individual | 11/12/2023 | |
| Stroble, Tracey | Corporate officer | Individual | 06/03/2019 | |
| Alexander, Amy | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/31/2025 | |
| Calder, Stephanie | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/31/2025 | |
| Forquer, Adele | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/31/2022 | |
| Fry, Stephen | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 10/29/2023 | |
| Hostrander, Amy | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 10/30/2017 | |
| Johnson, Taryn | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 11/12/2023 | |
| McCreary, Glenn | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/31/2024 | |
| Mutchler, Richard | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/31/2024 | |
| Stroble, Tracey | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 06/03/2019 | |
| Vanemon, Kimberly | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/31/2025 | |
| White, Elizabeth | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/31/2022 | |
| Duff, Stephanie | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/01/2020 | |
| Fry, Stephen | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/04/2025 |
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.
Licensed assisted living residences and personal care homes in the same town or within 5 miles, each with its Pennsylvania licence record.
These are the official offices in Pennsylvania. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.