California ›Porterville

Sierra Valley Rehab Center

301 West Putnam, Porterville, CA 93257 · Tulare County · 139 certified beds · avg 126 residents/day · certified since Jul 1, 1974

Part of chain: PACS GROUP (274 facilities, chain avg rating 2.9★)

3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
1
Serious findings on record
$8,190
Fines, last 3 years
4.17
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

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

Health inspection rating: ★★★☆☆3/5 · CMS overall rating: 4/5

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 · Nov 4, 2024 · F-0656 · triggered by a complaint

The 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.

Why it matters: Without a complete, working care plan, important needs can slip through the cracks and no one is accountable for results.

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: Nov 22, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

All citations in the current public record (62)

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
Jul 23, 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
Feb 27, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not properly inform residents or their representatives about arbitration agreements — contracts that give up the right to sue in court — including their right to refuse to sign.
Feb 27, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Feb 27, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide at least one adequately sized room for dining and activities, with good lighting, airflow, and furniture.
Feb 27, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives.
Feb 27, 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.
Feb 27, 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.
Feb 27, 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.
Feb 27, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not help a resident get vision and hearing services — such as eye exams, glasses, hearing tests, or hearing aids.
Feb 27, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not safely and appropriately administer IV fluids (fluids given through a vein) for residents who needed them.
Feb 27, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not observe each nurse aide's job performance or provide regular training as required.
Feb 27, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility's menus did not meet residents' nutritional needs, or were not prepared in advance, followed as written, kept up to date, or reviewed by a dietician.
Feb 27, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide special eating equipment and utensils — like adaptive cups or easy-grip silverware — for residents who need them, along with appropriate help at meals.
Feb 27, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not have policies on smoking.
Feb 27, 2025B · Minimal risk, repeatedThe facility had resident rooms smaller than required — at least 80 square feet per person in shared rooms and 100 square feet in single rooms.
Feb 3, 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
Feb 3, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. These written safeguards are the foundation of resident protection. · from a complaint
Dec 30, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. These written safeguards are the foundation of resident protection. · from a complaint
Dec 30, 2024D · 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 30, 2024D · 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
Dec 30, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident. · from a complaint
Dec 30, 2024D · 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
Nov 4, 2024▲ G · Actual 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
Oct 25, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · from a complaint
Jul 24, 2024D · 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
Jul 24, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not have a working call system — the button or cord residents use to summon help — in each resident's bathroom and bathing area. · from a complaint
Feb 1, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail.
Feb 1, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident.
Feb 1, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not try to gradually reduce doses of mood- and mind-altering medications or use non-drug approaches first, as required, or used 'as needed' psychiatric drugs without proper limits.
Feb 1, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service.
Feb 1, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not bring in qualified outside professionals to provide a required service when it didn't have a qualified professional on staff.
Feb 1, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not allow residents to take their own medications when a clinical review showed they could do so safely. Residents have this right if their care team determines it's appropriate.
Feb 1, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not create and follow a basic care plan covering a new resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of admission. The first days are when a new resident is most vulnerable.
Feb 1, 2024D · 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.
Feb 1, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required.
Feb 1, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide the help residents need with basic daily activities — like bathing, dressing, eating, and using the bathroom — for residents who cannot do these things on their own.
Feb 1, 2024D · 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.
Feb 1, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Feb 1, 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.
Feb 1, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration.
Feb 1, 2024D · 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.
Feb 1, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not have a licensed pharmacist review each resident's complete medication regimen and medical chart every month, or did not follow its own rules for reporting medication problems.
Feb 1, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep residents' medications free from unnecessary drugs. Residents should only take medicines they truly need, at the right dose, for a clear reason.
Feb 1, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not have enough support staff to safely and effectively run its food and nutrition service.
Feb 1, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility's menus did not meet residents' nutritional needs, or were not prepared in advance, followed as written, kept up to date, or reviewed by a dietician.
Feb 1, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Feb 1, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards.
Feb 1, 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.
Feb 1, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
Feb 1, 2024B · Minimal risk, repeatedThe facility had resident rooms smaller than required — at least 80 square feet per person in shared rooms and 100 square feet in single rooms.
Sep 19, 2023D · 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
Sep 13, 2023D · 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
Mar 10, 2022F · 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.
Mar 10, 2022E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident.
Mar 10, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not treat residents with dignity and respect, or did not honor their rights to make their own decisions and communicate freely. This is one of the most fundamental resident rights.
Mar 10, 2022D · 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.
Mar 10, 2022D · 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.
Mar 10, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide the care needed to maintain or improve residents' movement and flexibility — such as range-of-motion exercises — leading to avoidable decline.
Mar 10, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not post its nurse staffing information every day. Nursing homes must publicly display how many nurses and aides are on duty each day.
Mar 10, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not try to gradually reduce doses of mood- and mind-altering medications or use non-drug approaches first, as required, or used 'as needed' psychiatric drugs without proper limits.
Mar 10, 2022D · 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.
Mar 10, 2022B · Minimal risk, repeatedThe facility had resident rooms smaller than required — at least 80 square feet per person in shared rooms and 100 square feet in single rooms.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (24 → 14).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
2022100F
202320D
2024331G ▲
2025170E

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)

1 fine totaling $8,190.

DateTypeAmount / length
Oct 25, 2024Fine$8,190

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)4.174.313.95top 46% in California; top 33% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.270.610.69bottom 8% in California; bottom 7% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing3.853.903.50top 42% in California; top 27% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.170.510.48bottom 5% in California; bottom 8% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)33.336.745.8top 40% in California; top 20% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)45.538.142.9bottom 34% in California; bottom 43% in the U.S.

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 4.08, RN 0.27, weekend 3.76. Staffing rating: 3/5.

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: 4/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Limited Liability company

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Apt, FrederickIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2024
Dotson, SandraIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2024
Jergensen, JoshuaIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2024
Mitchell, JohnIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2024
Providence Administrative Consulting Services INCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE06/15/2023
Rasmussen, MasonIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE06/15/2023
Rasmussen, MasonIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE07/16/2025
Truist BankOrganization5% or Greater Security InterestNOT APPLICABLE12/07/2023
Wadhwani, SuneelIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE06/15/2023
Wadhwani, SuneelIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE07/16/2025

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
Sierra View Medical Center0.6 miPorterville, CA★★★★★4/5
Sequoia Transitional Care0.6 miPorterville, CA★★★★☆3/5
River Walk Care Center1.1 miPorterville, CA★★☆☆☆2/5
Gateway Post Acute1.4 miPorterville, CA★★☆☆☆2/5
Lindsay Gardens Nursing & Rehabilitation11.0 miLindsay, CA★★★★☆3/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Porterville →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 055568.