CaliforniaLake Isabella

Kern Valley Healthcare District DP SNF

6412 Laurel Ave, Lake Isabella, CA 93240 · Kern County · 74 certified beds · avg 56 residents/day · certified since Jul 30, 1992

2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
2
Serious findings on record
$31,581
Fines, last 3 years
4.11
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)

Health inspection rating: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · CMS overall rating: 2/5

The health inspection star above is graded on a curve within each state — a set share of each state's facilities gets each star level — so a facility can have few citations and still rate 2–3 stars if others in its state did even better. The overall rating combines that inspection score with staffing and self-reported quality measures.

Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Oct 27, 2025 · F-0684 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.

Why it matters: Care that strays from doctor's orders or ignores the resident's wishes can lead to declining health and avoidable harm.

Severity (G): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.

Corrected: Jan 30, 2026 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Nov 25, 2024 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.

Why it matters: This is one of the most common citations and directly relates to falls and injuries, which can be devastating for older adults.

Severity (G): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.

Corrected: Jan 25, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

All citations in the current public record (32)

CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed.

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
Apr 23, 2026F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not have a registered nurse on duty at least 8 hours a day, or did not have a registered nurse serving full-time as director of nursing.
Apr 23, 2026F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide.
Apr 23, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Apr 23, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Apr 23, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Apr 23, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide safe and appropriate respiratory care — such as oxygen, breathing treatments, or care for residents on breathing equipment — for residents who needed it.
Apr 23, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not have a policy covering how food brought in by family and visitors is used and stored safely.
Apr 23, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not have policies on smoking.
Dec 17, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not make sure residents were fully informed about their own health, care, and treatments in a way they could understand. · from a complaint
Dec 17, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not immediately notify the resident, their doctor, and a family member when something significant happened — such as an injury, a decline in health, or a room change. Families and doctors are entitled to know right away. · from a complaint
Dec 17, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint
Dec 17, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines. · from a complaint
Dec 17, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · from a complaint
Oct 27, 2025▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · from a complaint
Oct 27, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not make sure residents actually saw their doctor face-to-face at all required visits. Doctors must examine nursing home residents in person on a regular schedule. · from a complaint
Jun 26, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · from a complaint
Jun 25, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · from a complaint
Jun 12, 2025F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not have a registered nurse on duty at least 8 hours a day, or did not have a registered nurse serving full-time as director of nursing.
Jun 12, 2025F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Jun 12, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Jun 12, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.
Jun 12, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide routine dental care and 24-hour emergency dental care for residents.
Apr 7, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not honor residents' right to voice complaints without discrimination or retaliation, or did not have a working complaint process that resolves issues promptly. · from a complaint
Apr 7, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide activities that meet residents' needs and interests. Nursing homes must offer meaningful activity programs, not just leave residents idle. · from a complaint
Nov 25, 2024▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint
Apr 25, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not have enough nursing staff each day to meet every resident's needs, or did not have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift. Adequate staffing is one of the strongest predictors of good care. · from a complaint
Apr 25, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · from a complaint
Apr 25, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not properly complete the required screening (called PASARR) that identifies whether a person entering a nursing home has a mental illness or intellectual disability and needs specialized services. · from a complaint
Apr 25, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility allowed residents to lose the ability to do daily activities — like bathing, dressing, and eating — when there was no medical reason for the decline. Good care helps residents keep the abilities they have. · from a complaint
Apr 25, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide appropriate care related to bladder and bowel needs — including care for residents who use catheters and steps to prevent urinary tract infections. · from a complaint
Apr 25, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide residents with enough to drink, or with drinks matching their needs and preferences, to keep them properly hydrated. · from a complaint
Apr 25, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · from a complaint

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (5 → 8).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202481G ▲
2025161G ▲
202680F

Counts reflect the current CMS public record (~3 inspection cycles plus complaint investigations); years with no surveys show no row. Inspection frequency varies, so compare severity as well as counts.

Fines and enforcement (last 3 years)

2 fines totaling $31,581, plus 1 Medicare payment denial period.

DateTypeAmount / length
Oct 27, 2025Fine$21,548
Oct 27, 2025Payment Denial51 days from Jan 8, 2026
Nov 25, 2024Fine$10,033

Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)

MeasureThis facilityCalifornia avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)4.114.313.95bottom 50% in California; top 35% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.220.610.69bottom 2% in California; bottom 4% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing3.783.903.50top 47% in California; top 30% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.150.510.48bottom 2% in California; bottom 5% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)32.636.745.8top 39% in California; top 19% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)0.038.142.9

Hours are per resident per day, case-mix adjusted by CMS so facilities caring for sicker residents can be compared fairly (same basis as the CMS staffing star). "Top X%" means better than most facilities: more staffing hours, or lower turnover. Raw (unadjusted) reported hours: total 3.38, RN 0.18, weekend 3.11. Staffing rating: 1/5.

Self-reported quality measures

Note: these ratings are based on data the facility reports about itself to CMS. They are not independently verified by inspectors, and can look better than inspection findings. Give more weight to the inspection results above.

Quality measures rating: 5/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: —/5

Who owns this facility

Government - Hospital district

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Blythe, JohnIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE05/03/2017
Clark, FrederickIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2021
Elconin, KatherynIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2021
Elliott, RossIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2020
Gross, RobertIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE02/01/2020
Gross, RobertIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE02/01/2020
Lovrich, JohnIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE09/01/2025
Lovrich, JohnIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE09/01/2025
Lovrich, JohnIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/15/2026
Markman, SallyIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE03/03/2014
Markman, SallyIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE03/03/2014
Parks, EugeneIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE12/07/2018
Pettijohn, BrendaIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE10/06/2023
Smith, AmyIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE02/18/2015
Smith, AmyIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE02/18/2015

Questions to ask on your visit

Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.

Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Bakersfield Post Acute33.6 miBakersfield, CA★☆☆☆☆1/5
Height Street Skilled Care35.6 miBakersfield, CA★☆☆☆☆1/5
The Rehabilitation Center of Bakersfield35.8 miBakersfield, CA★☆☆☆☆1/5
Arvin Post Acute37.6 miArvin, CA★☆☆☆☆2/5
San Joaquin Nursing Center and Rehabilitation Cent37.7 miBakersfield, CA★★★☆☆2/5
The Orchards Post-Acute38.0 miBakersfield, CA★★☆☆☆2/5
Valley Healthcare Center39.1 miBakersfield, CA★☆☆☆☆1/5
Kern River Transitional Care39.9 miBakersfield, CA★☆☆☆☆1/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Lake Isabella →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 555517.