Clearview Home

406 West Washington, Mount Ayr, IA 50854 (641) 464-2240
For profit - Partnership 82 Beds Independent Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
48/100
#178 of 392 in IA
Last Inspection: July 2025

Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.

Overview

Clearview Home in Mount Ayr, Iowa, has a Trust Grade of D, indicating below-average performance with some significant concerns. It ranks #178 out of 392 facilities in Iowa, placing it in the top half, and #1 of 2 in Ringgold County, meaning it is the best local option but still has room for improvement. The facility is improving, having reduced its issues from one in 2024 to none in 2025, but it has serious staffing challenges, with a 55% turnover rate that is concerning compared to the state average. While the home has an average RN coverage, it has accumulated $47,996 in fines, which is higher than 82% of Iowa facilities, suggesting ongoing compliance problems. Specific incidents include a critical failure to timely report an alleged abuse situation and inadequate protection of resident information, highlighting areas where the home needs to improve while also indicating a commitment to address these issues.

Trust Score
D
48/100
In Iowa
#178/392
Top 45%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
1 → 0 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
55% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
$47,996 in fines. Lower than most Iowa facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 35 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Iowa. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
○ Average
8 deficiencies on record. Average for a facility this size. Mostly minor or procedural issues.
★★★☆☆
3.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★★★☆☆
3.0
Care Quality
★★★☆☆
3.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 1 issues
2025: 0 issues

The Good

  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

3-Star Overall Rating

Near Iowa average (3.1)

Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities

Staff Turnover: 55%

Near Iowa avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Federal Fines: $47,996

Above median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

Staff turnover is elevated (55%)

7 points above Iowa average of 48%

The Ugly 8 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening
Sept 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to properly protect resident information from unauthorized access. The facility reported a census of 73 residents. Find...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to properly protect resident information from unauthorized access. The facility reported a census of 73 residents. Findings include: On 9/9/24 at 3:02 PM, Resident #20's Electronic Health Record (EHR) information was visible on an open laptop on the medication cart in front of the South hall nurses' station. There were ambulatory residents within the vicinity and no staff were present. At 3:07 pm, Staff A, Registered Nurse (RN) stated she thought she locked the laptop screen. She also stated the laptop screen's should be locked when staff is away from it. An undated document titled HIPAA Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 indicated if someone asks for information, or is accessing it, workforce members should know who the person is, and that the person is allowed to look at that information. On 9/11/24 at 3:38 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated staff should lock the computer screen when leaving medication cart.
May 2023 4 deficiencies 1 IJ
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, facility policy review, facility investigation, family interview and staff interview the facili...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, facility policy review, facility investigation, family interview and staff interview the facility failed to report timely and failed to separate the alleged perpetrator from potential victims during investigation of alleged abuse for 1 of 3 residents reviewed (Resident #2). On 4/24/23 an aide reported she notified management back in December 2022 or January 2023 that a staff member took a video of a resident lying in bed with his brief exposed and posted it to her social media story. On 4/25/23 staff member confirmed she took the video back in December 2022 or January 2023 and management spoke to her at the time of the incident. The aide continued to work with all residents, including resident #2 from the time of the incident until she was terminated on 3/12/23 for taking an inappropriate video. These failures constituted an immediate jeopardy situation. On 4/25/23 at 2:42 PM, the Iowa Department of Inspections and Appeals staff contacted the facility staff to notify them the Department staff determined an Immediate Jeopardy situation existed at the facility beginning 1/19/23. The facility staff removed the immediacy on 4/26/23, and decreased the scope to a D, after the facility staff completed the following: a. Re-education with all staff on the facility policy Nursing Facility Abuse Prevention, Identification, Investigation and Reporting Policy dated July 2019. b. Re-education with all staff on the undated facility policy Social Media. The facility reported a census of 70 residents. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #2 documented he scored 7 points on the Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) indicating he had severe cognitive impairment. The MDS documented he was totally dependent on two people for transfers and toileting, was totally dependent on one person for hygiene and required extensive assist of one person for bed mobility and dressing. The MDS documented he had diagnoses that included coronary artery disease, hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, dementia, Parkinson's disease, depression and psychotic disorder. The Care Plan dated 5/26/22 for Resident #2 documented he had cognitive loss related to his Parkinson's disease. The Care Plan documented he had a history of hallucinations, had periods of lethargy and as more disorganized in his thinking. The facility policy Nursing Facility Abuse Prevention, Identification, Investigation and Reporting Policy dated July 2019 documented the following: -All residents have the right to be free from abuse. This includes prohibiting nursing staff from taking acts that result in person degradation, including the taking and using photographs or recordings in any manner that would demean or humiliate a resident, and prohibits using any form of equipment (e.g. smart phone) to take, keep, or distribute photographs and/or recordings on social media. -All allegations of resident abuse shall be reported to the Iowa Department of Inspections and Appeals not later than two hours after the allegation. -Should an incident or suspected abuse be reported or observed, the Administrator or designee will investigate the alleged incident. -The Administrator or designee will complete documentation of the allegation of resident abuse and collect supporting documents relative to the alleged incident. This includes assessing the resident for injury and proper notification to the primary care provider and responsible party. -The facility will establish and enforce an environment that encourages individuals to report allegation of abuse without fear or recrimination or intimidation. -Upon receiving a report of an allegation of resident abuse, the facility shall immediately implement measures to prevent further potential abuse of residents from occurring while the facility investigation is in process. If this involves an allegation of abuse by an employee, this will be accomplished by separating the employee accused of abuse from all residents. The Facility Investigation dated 3/11/23 documented it was reported to the Director of Nursing (DON) on 3/11/23 that Staff D had taken a snapchat of a resident and had sent it to a former employee. The report documented the facility placed the aide, Staff D, on suspension until the investigation completed. Staff D stated she took the snapchat of Resident #2 laying in his bed, partially clothed, and sent it to a coworker at that time. Administration terminated employment with Staff D on 3/12/23. The report documented that Staff D stated the video was of the resident lying in bed pulling the stuffing out of his brief with no caption. The report documented the facility interviewed the other employee and she confirmed it was of the resident lying in bed pulling at the stuffing in his brief. The snapchat deleted after it was viewed so the facility was unable to see it. On 4/19/23 at 10:45 AM the nurse, Staff C, stated Staff D took a video of Resident #2 well over a month ago and management tried to cover it up. She stated the Assistant Administrator was aware of it but did not report it right away and allowed Staff D to continue to work until 3/11/23 when she was let go for another incident. She stated the only reason management reported the video incident that Staff D took is because a family member of another resident found out about it and threatened to pull her mom out if they continued to let staff work at the facility that would video a resident's privates. She stated Staff D sent the video to former employee Staff E and that she was aware of it because Staff E told her about it. She stated Staff E told her that the Assistant Administrator asked her to lie about when it happened if the state called her. On 4/24/23 at 12:15 PM the aide Staff A stated she never witnessed Staff D using her phone to take video of a resident but she heard through talk at the facility that Staff D used her phone and took video of Resident #2 and his privates was in the video. She stated she heard it was posted on her story and she also heard it was sent to another employee but she stated she never saw it. She stated this incident happened 2-3 months prior to 3/11/23. She stated the facility did education with them early this month about HIPPA and not using their phones while working. On 4/24/23 at 12:49 PM the aide, Staff B, stated she never saw any video of the resident but she heard staff at the facility talking about it. She stated she heard that Staff D took a video of the resident in bed in his brief and that she sent it to her snapchat story. She stated she started at the facility on 3/9/23 and that it had happened prior to that because that is when she heard about it. On 4/24/23 at 1:43 PM the Social Service Director (SSD) stated she gives pamphlets to families and residents on admit that addressed HIPPA and their privacy rights. She stated on hire she was trained about abuse, privacy and confidentiality and the facility also provides an annual in-service about it. She stated the staff were recently re-educated they are not to have their cell phones on them while working. She stated the second weekend in March is when she was notified that Staff D took video of the resident. She stated the only thing she was involved in was calling the wife to inform her and then following up with the resident for any behaviors. She stated the wife was upset but understood that things happen and that kids can be stupid. On 4/24/23 at 2:57 PM when questioned Staff E and informed her it was reported that she was sent a video from Staff D of the resident in his brief, she got upset and stated that Staff D did not send her a video that Staff D put it on her snapchat story and that is when she saw it. Staff E stated she reported it to the Assistant Administrator the next morning. She stated she does not have the video. She stated she knows it happened in December or January because she has not worked there since then and it happened while she was an employee. On 4/25/23 at 8:26 AM the aide, Staff D stated when she walked into Resident #2's room to check on him she found him in bed and he had torn up his brief. She stated she took a video of it because she thought it was funny and was going to share it with his wife. She stated after taking the video she put the phone in her pocket to take care of the resident and her phone accidentally uploaded the video to her snapchat story. She stated when she noticed the video uploaded she immediately deleted the video. She stated this happened back in December or January and that management was aware of it. She stated the Assistant Administrator pulled her into his office at that time, talked to her about it and told her not to do it again. She stated it took him until March to fire her. On 4/25/23 at 10:31 AM the SSD stated if she ever saw a resident being abused she would separate the resident from the person abusing them to make sure they are safe and then she would let the charge nurse know right away. She stated she would also make sure management was aware. On 4/25/23 at 10:35 AM the aide, Staff F, stated she has been an aide at the facility for almost a year. She stated she was trained on hire of abuse and if she ever saw abuse she would separate the resident to make sure they are safe and then she would report it to her nurse immediately. She stated taking video of a resident can be seen as abuse and that they have been taught by the facility they are not supposed to use their phone to take pictures or video of residents and they are not to have their phones on them. On 4/25/23 at 10:42 AM the aide, Staff G, stated if she were to see any form of abuse she would separate them right away and then tell her charge nurse so it can be investigated. She stated they have been taught not to have their phones on them while working. She stated if she saw a staff member taking video of a resident she would tell them to stop right away and report it to her nurse. On 4/25/23 at 11:52 AM the DON stated all staff are trained on hire and annually regarding abuse, what to do and when to report it. She stated if staff see any form of abuse they are expected to separate the resident to make sure they are safe, report it right away so she can start an investigation and report it to the State Agency within two hours. On 4/25/23 at 1:55 PM when asked the Assistant Administrator, when he became aware of Staff D taking video of Resident #2 he stated he was aware prior to 3/11/23. When informed it was reported that he was informed back in December 2022 or January 2023 he agreed and stated he would check on the date specifically. He stated when Staff E reported it he immediately called Staff D into his office. He stated Staff D denied it and there was no video to prove it so he thought it was teenage drama between the two aides and didn't know if it really happened. He stated they have already done a mini-education with all the aides on phone use. He stated when another staff took pictures of a different resident on 3/11/23 this incident was brought up again so he pulled Staff D back in and she admitted to taking the video. He stated that is when he decided to terminate her. On 4/25/23 at 2:10 PM the Assistant Administrator stated he looked back through his phone and 1/19/23 is when he found out about Staff D taking the video of Resident #2.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, facility policy review, facility investigation, and staff interview the facility failed to ensu...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, facility policy review, facility investigation, and staff interview the facility failed to ensure a resident was free from degradation for 1 of 3 residents reviewed (Resident #2). The facility reported a census of 70 residents. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #2 documented he scored 7 points on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) indicating he had severe cognitive impairment. The MDS documented he was totally dependent on two people for transfers and toileting, was totally dependent on one person for hygiene and required extensive assist of one person for bed mobility and dressing. The MDS documented he had diagnoses that included coronary artery disease, hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, dementia, Parkinson's disease, depression and psychotic disorder. The Care Plan dated 5/26/22 for Resident #2 documented he had cognitive loss related to his Parkinson's disease. The Care Plan documented he had a history of hallucinations, had periods of lethargy and as more disorganized in his thinking. The facility policy Nursing Facility Abuse Prevention, Identification, Investigation and Reporting Policy dated July 2019 documented the following: -All residents have the right to be free from abuse. This includes prohibiting nursing staff from taking acts that result in person degradation, including the taking and using photographs or recordings in any manner that would demean or humiliate a resident, and prohibits using any form of equipment (e.g. smart phone) to take, keep, or distribute photographs and/or recordings on social media. -Upon receiving a report of an allegation of resident abuse, the facility shall immediately implement measures to prevent further potential abuse of residents from occurring while the facility investigation is in process. If this involves an allegation of abuse by an employee, this will be accomplished by separating the employee accused of abuse from all residents. The Facility Investigation dated 3/11/23 documented it was reported to the Director of Nursing (DON) on 3/11/23 that Staff D had taken a snapchat of a resident and had sent it to a former employee. The report documented the facility placed the aide, Staff D, on suspension until the investigation completed. Staff D stated she took the snapchat of Resident #2 laying in his bed, partially clothed, and sent it to a coworker at that time. Administration terminated employment with Staff D on 3/12/23. The report documented that Staff D stated the video was of the resident lying in bed pulling the stuffing out of his brief with no caption. The report documented the facility interviewed the other employee and she confirmed it was of the resident lying in bed pulling at the stuffing in his brief. The snapchat deleted after it was viewed so the facility was unable to see it. On 4/19/23 at 10:45 AM the nurse, Staff C, stated Staff D took a video of Resident #2 well over a month ago and management tried to cover it up. She stated the Assistant Administrator was aware of it but did not report it right away and allowed Staff D to continue to work until 3/11/23 when she was let go for another incident. She stated the only reason management reported the video incident that Staff D took is because a family member of another resident found out about it and threatened to pull her mom out if they continued to let staff work at the facility that would video a resident's privates. She stated Staff D sent the video to former employee Staff E and that she was aware of it because Staff E told her about it. On 4/24/23 at 12:15 PM the aide Staff A stated she never witnessed Staff D using her phone to take video of a resident but she heard through talk at the facility that Staff D used her phone and took video of Resident #2 and his privates was in the video. She stated she heard it was posted on her story and she also heard it was sent to another employee but she stated she never saw it. She stated this incident happened 2-3 months prior to 3/11/23. She stated the facility did education with them early this month about HIPPA and not using their phones while working. On 4/24/23 at 12:49 PM the aide, Staff B, stated she never saw any video of the resident but she heard staff at the facility talking about it. She stated she heard that Staff D took a video of the resident in bed in his brief and that she sent it to her snapchat story. She stated she started at the facility on 3/9/23 and that it had happened prior to that because that is when she heard about it. On 4/24/23 at 1:43 PM the Social Service Director (SSD) stated she gives pamphlets to families and residents on admit that addressed HIPPA and their privacy rights. She stated on hire she was trained about abuse, privacy and confidentiality and the facility also provides an annual in-service about it. She stated the staff were recently re-educated they are not to have their cell phones on them while working. She stated the second weekend in March is when she was notified that Staff D took video of the resident. She stated the only thing she was involved in was calling the wife to inform her and then following up with the resident for any behaviors. She stated the wife was upset but understood that things happen and that kids can be stupid. On 4/24/23 at 2:57 PM when questioned Staff E and informed her it was reported that she was sent a video from Staff D of the resident in his brief, she got upset and stated that Staff D did not send her a video that Staff D put it on her snapchat story and that is when she saw it. Staff E stated she reported it to the Assistant Administrator the next morning. She stated she does not have the video. She stated she knows it happened in December or January because she has not worked there since then and it happened while she was an employee. On 4/25/23 at 8:26 AM the aide, Staff D stated when she walked into Resident #2's room to check on him she found him in bed and he had torn up his brief. She stated she took a video of it because she thought it was funny and was going to share it with his wife. She stated after taking the video she put the phone in her pocket to take care of the resident and her phone accidentally uploaded the video to her snapchat story. She stated when she noticed the video uploaded she immediately deleted the video. She stated this happened back in December or January and that management was aware of it. She stated the Assistant Administrator pulled her into his office at that time, talked to her about it and told her not to do it again. She stated it took him until March to fire her. On 4/25/23 at 10:31 AM the SSD stated if she ever saw a resident being abused she would separate the resident from the person abusing them to make sure they are safe and then she would let the charge nurse know right away. She stated she would also make sure management was aware. On 4/25/23 at 10:35 AM the aide, Staff F, stated she has been an aide at the facility for almost a year. She stated she was trained on hire of abuse and if she ever saw abuse she would separate the resident to make sure they are safe and then she would report it to her nurse immediately. She stated taking video of a resident can be seen as abuse and that they have been taught by the facility they are not supposed to use their phone to take pictures or video of residents and they are not to have their phones on them. On 4/25/23 at 10:42 AM the aide, Staff G, stated if she were to see any form of abuse she would separate them right away and then tell her charge nurse so it can be investigated. She stated they have been taught not to have their phones on them while working. She stated if she saw a staff member taking video of a resident she would tell them to stop right away and report it to her nurse. On 4/25/23 at 11:52 AM the DON stated all staff are trained on hire and annually regarding abuse, what to do and when to report it. She stated if staff see any form of abuse they are expected to separate the resident to make sure they are safe, report it right away so she can start an investigation and report it to the State Agency within two hours. On 4/25/23 at 1:55 PM when asked the Assistant Administrator, when he became aware of Staff D taking video of Resident #2 he stated he was aware prior to 3/11/23. When informed it was reported that he was informed back in December 2022 or January 2023 he agreed and stated he would check on the date specifically. He stated when Staff E reported it he immediately called Staff D into his office. He stated Staff D denied it and there was no video to prove it so he thought it was teenage drama between the two aides and didn't know if it really happened. He stated they have already done a mini-education with all the aides on phone use. He stated when another staff took pictures of a different resident on 3/11/23 this incident was brought up again so he pulled Staff D back in and she admitted to taking the video. He stated that is when he decided to terminate her. On 4/25/23 at 2:10 PM the Assistant Administrator stated he looked back through his phone and 1/19/23 is when he found out about Staff D taking the video of Resident #2.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Safe Transfer (Tag F0626)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, facility policy review, family and staff interviews the facility failed to permit a resident to...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, facility policy review, family and staff interviews the facility failed to permit a resident to return to the facility after hospitalization and failed to submit notice to the resident or her family of the discharge in writing for 1 of 3 residents reviewed (Resident #1). The facility reported a census of 70 residents. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set assessment (MDS) dated [DATE] documented Resident #1 scored 4 on the Brief Interview of Mental Status indicating she is severely cognitively impaired. The MDS documented she required limited assist of one person for transfers, walking, dressing, toileting and hygiene. The MDS documented she was frequently incontinent of urine and occasionally incontinent of bowel. The MDS documented she had diagnoses to include dementia without behaviors, coronary artery disease, hypertension, cerebrovascular accident, and coagulation defect. The MDS documented active discharge planning was not occurring for the resident to return to the community. The MDS documented that no referrals had been made to the Local Contact Agency and that a referral was not needed. The Care Plan dated 9/18/22 documented Resident #1's daughter is her caregiver at home and that she had a hospital stay prior to nursing home placement. The Care Plan documented the resident had settled into placement at the facility. The Care Plan documented the daughter is the decision maker and needs to be included in discussions about her care. The Care Plan lacked documentation of any discharge planning. The undated facility policy admission Agreement documented the facility shall not involuntarily transfer or discharge the resident, except for medical reasons; for the resident's welfare or the health and safety of other individuals in the facility; for nonpayment of the rates, fees and charges due pursuant to this agreement; by reason of action by the Iowa Department of Human Services; by reason of action by the Professional Standards Review Organization; or if the facility ceases to operate. The facility shall provide the resident with prior notice of transfer or discharge as required by law. The Face Sheet documented the resident admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The contact info documented the daughter as the Power of Attorney for care and emergency contact. The Progress Notes for the resident documented the following: On 4/15/23 at 2:00 PM the resident was admitted to the hospital for observation for syncopal episode. On 4/18/23 at 9:00 AM the resident currently in the hospital. Will see what the discharge orders state on her return. The Progress Notes lacked any documentation of discharge planning, notification of discharge or inability to meet the resident needs. On 4/18/23 at 3:30 PM the Assistant Administrator stated he did not want to take the resident back due to the daughter was not happy with her cares. He stated he had not issued any notice as of now. On 4/18/23 at 3:41 PM during the phone call with the daughter she received a phone call from the hospital and they informed her that the facility just called them and will not accept her back. The daughter stated her mom has only been out of the facility for 3 days and is private pay at the facility. She stated this is the first time she is hearing that the facility does not want to take her back and stated she has never been issued any notice. She stated she has a concern for involuntary discharge. On 4/25/23 at 11:52 AM the Director of Nursing stated it is the policy of the facility to issue notice if they plan on discharging a resident involuntarily.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0725 (Tag F0725)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, resident interview, family interview and staff interview the facility failed to provide suffici...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, resident interview, family interview and staff interview the facility failed to provide sufficient staff to answer call lights in a reasonable time and to provide cares every 2 hours for 2 of 6 residents reviewed (Resident #1 and #14). The facility reported a census of 70 residents. Finding include: 1. The Minimum Data Set assessment (MDS) dated [DATE] documented Resident #1 scored 4 on the Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) indicating she was severely cognitively impaired. The MDS documented she required limited assist of one person for transfers, walking, dressing, toileting and hygiene. The MDS documented she was frequently incontinent of urine and occasionally incontinent of bowel. The MDS documented she had diagnoses to include dementia without behaviors, coronary artery disease, hypertension, cerebrovascular accident, and coagulation defect. The Care Plan dated 9/19/22 documented Resident #1 is confused and forgetful. The Care Plan documented she needs reassurance and guidance as to what she is supposed to be doing. The Care Plan documented she is incontinent of urine and wears briefs. The Care Plan directed staff to remind her to use the restroom and to assist her with changing her briefs as needed. The Progress Notes for the resident documented the following: On 3/11/23 at 6:30 AM found resident covered in stool. Resident had dried vomit on the bed and fresh on the floor. Resident taken immediately for a shower. Stool in vaginal vault. On 4/18/23 at 10:45 AM interviewed the Assistant Administrator and Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated the aide on that hall, Staff D, told her she took Resident #1 to the bathroom at around 11:45 PM and again at 2:00 AM. She stated she was able to confirm with the nurse on duty that night, that she saw Staff D across the hall from Resident #1 around 2:00 AM doing rounds. She could not confirm that she went into that room but she knows 2:00 AM rounds were done and she was in the vicinity of the resident's room. She stated a day aide, came in at 3:30 AM and Staff D left at 3:45 AM. She stated the day aide was unable to get to the resident at 4:00 AM rounds because she ran into problems with some heavy care residents and 4:00 AM rounds ran right into 6:00 AM rounds. She stated the resident was found covered in dried bowel movement (BM) at around 6:30 AM when they went in to do morning cares. The Assistant Administrator stated they staff night shift with one nurse, one aide on south hall, one aide on north hall, one aide in the special care unit and one float. He stated there was a call in that night so they did not have the float but the facility was still sufficiently staffed. The Assistant Administrator stated the aides alerted the nurse due to the condition in which they found the resident. He stated the nurse told them at first she thought it was dried BM and urine that had spread out and that there were different rings indicating more than one episode of incontinence. The DON stated the resident is independent in bed and rolls around to make herself comfortable. She stated she climbs in on her knees and will sleep on her stomach. The Assistant Administrator stated due to 4:00 AM rounds not being done the resident could have been covered in the BM for 4 and ½ hours but that it could have been 8 hours if Staff D did not do 2:00 AM rounds. On 4/18/23 at 1:20 PM the aide, Staff A, stated she worked day shift the morning of 3/11/23. She stated she went into Resident #1's room at around 6:30 AM to do morning cares and when she turned on the light she had to do a double take because it looked like the resident had a brown blanket on her. She stated the resident was clothed and was covered in BM from her ankles to her shoulders. She stated it was liquid BM and it was dried to her clothes and skin so it had been there for a while. She stated it appeared she had not been cared for all night. She stated she went and got the nurse because it looked like no one had checked on her all night. She stated another aide helping her, Staff B, stayed and cleaned up the room while she took the resident to shower. She stated that was the only way they were going to get her clean because it was stuck to her. When asked she stated she feels that when the night shift has a call in they do not have enough staff because that is when the staff report to the day shift they are not able to get all the care done. On 4/18/23 at 3:41 PM the daughter stated on 3/11/23 the nurse called her and informed her that her mom was found covered in BM early that morning. She stated they sent her out to the hospital because she almost passed out after being showered. She stated she went to the hospital and the admitting doctor told her she should contact the Ombudsman office to report elderly abuse. The facility showered her to try and clean her up but she was so dirty she still had some on her. She stated the hospital staff had to finish getting her cleaned up. On 4/19/23 at 10:30 AM the nurse, Staff C, stated the morning of 3/11/23 it was obvious the resident did not have any cares throughout the night because the BM was dried to her. She stated the resident could have laid in it for eight hours. On 4/24/23 at 12:49 PM the aide, Staff B, stated on 3/11/23 she went into the resident's room around 6:30 AM with Staff A to get the resident up for the day. She stated they found her asleep on her stomach. She stated it looked like she had brown pajamas on because she had dried feces all over her. She stated it was apparent to her the resident laid in the feces all night because of how dry it was on everything. When asked she stated there is not always enough staff on night shift. She stated when the float is scheduled and shows up it is better but when there are call ins they pull the float and never try to replace them. On 4/25/23 at 8:26 AM the aide, Staff D, stated the morning of 3/11/23 she left work at 3:45 AM. She stated an aide took over for her. She stated that night she did rounds on the resident at midnight and 2:00 AM. On 4/25/23 at 10:42 AM the aide, Staff G, stated the staff have been taught if a resident is unable to toilet or reposition themselves they are to check, change and reposition them every two hours. On 4/25/23 at 11:52 AM the DON stated Resident #1 is independent in bed but she does not know to ask for help so staff are to check and change or toilet her every two hours at night. 2. The MDS dated [DATE] for Resident #14 documented she scored 14 points on the BIMS indicating she was cognitively intact. The MDS documented she required extensive assist of two people for transfers, dressing and toileting. The MDS documented she was frequently incontinent of urine and always incontinent of bowel. The MDS documented she had diagnoses that included heart failure, hypertension, osteoarthritis, and spinal stenosis. The Care Plan dated 12/3/21 documented Resident #14 needs assist with most of her activities of daily living. The Care Plan documented she has had falls, utilizes a sit to stand lift for transfers and uses a call light appropriately. On 4/18/23 at 9:40 AM the resident stated she requires help from the staff getting out of her recliner to her wheelchair and needs help getting onto and off her commode. She stated the staff take good care of her but she is concerned she has to wait for help at times. She stated she has had to wait as long as 30 minutes to an hour for someone to come when she presses her call light. She stated she cannot remember a definite time of day of when it has happened. She stated she knows they are busy and have others to take care of but she stated she has heard staff talk about not having enough staff.
Dec 2022 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on clinical record reviews, staff interviews, and facility policy review the facility failed to submit to the Iowa Department of Inspections and Appeals (DIA) a bruise of unknown origin for 1 of...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on clinical record reviews, staff interviews, and facility policy review the facility failed to submit to the Iowa Department of Inspections and Appeals (DIA) a bruise of unknown origin for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #54) reviewed for accurately reporting reportable allegations to DIA. The facility reported a census of 67 residents. Findings include: 1. The Non-Pressure Skin Condition Report for Resident #54 documented a bruise to the pubis region identified on 8/31/22 measuring 30 centimeters (cm) in width. Record review of an untitled document dated 8/31/22 regarding Resident #54's bruise lacked documentation of how the bruise occurred. The document determined the facility completed interviews with the staff and Resident #54 revealing they did not know how the bruise happened. Record review of Resident #54 Nurses Notes from 8/30/22 to 9/2/22 lacked documentation of how the bruise identified on 8/31/22 occurred. The Facility provided list of Self-Reports submitted to the DIA lacked documentation of notice sent to DIA of Resident #54's bruise found on 8/31/22. On 12/1/22 at 11:02 AM the Director of Nursing confirmed that the facility did not report the bruise to DIA as she did not know it needed to be reported.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, clinical record reviews, staff, and resident interviews the facility failed to initiate a new order that ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, clinical record reviews, staff, and resident interviews the facility failed to initiate a new order that changed the frequency of completion of wound care for 1 out of 3 residents reviewed (Resident #271). The facility reported a census of 67. Findings include: Resident #271's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14, indicating intact cognition. The MDS indicated that Resident #271 had one surgical incision that required wound care. The MDS indicated an admission date of 11/14/22 from an acute hospital. Resident #271 required total assistance of two persons with transfers. The MDS indicated Resident #271's primary admission diagnosis of a non-pressure chronic ulcer of the other part of the left foot with a fat layer exposed. The Care Plan dated 11/25/22 revealed the resident admitted to the facility on a skilled level of care for a postoperative wound to his left foot. On 11/29/22 at 8:28 AM Resident #271 stated he had a really big ulcer on his left foot, about the size of a golf ball. He didn't know how it happened. He had three surgeries on it before coming to the facility for more care. The staff changed the dressing once everyday. On 11/29/22 at 11:30 AM Staff B, Registered Nurse (RN), stated that she checked the Treatment Administration Record (TAR) and the dressing is changed every day on day shift. Usually it is changed in the morning but today is his bath day so it will be changed in the afternoon after his bath. The MD/Nursing Communication form signed and noted on 11/22/22 had a handwritten order to continue to change the dressing every other day with silver alginate. On 11/30/22 at 10:10 AM observed Staff A, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), do the dressing change to Resident #271's left foot. The dressing Staff A removed included a date of 11/29/22. Resident #271's November 2022 TAR directed the staff to change the dressing to his wound daily. On 11/30/22 at 10:33 AM the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed after reviewing the order and TAR, that she didn't know that the TAR had different orders on the chart for frequency of doing the dressing change. On 11/30/22 at 10:40 AM the DON stated she talked to the nurse who noted the order. The nurse thought the order was already for every other day when she noted it. The DON reported that they would contact the doctor for clarification.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0836 (Tag F0836)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on clinical record reviews, staff interviews, and facility policy review the facility failed to report an attempted suicide to Iowa Department of Inspections and Appeals (DIA) for 1 of 1 residen...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on clinical record reviews, staff interviews, and facility policy review the facility failed to report an attempted suicide to Iowa Department of Inspections and Appeals (DIA) for 1 of 1 residents reviewed (Residents #32). The facility reported a census of 67 residents. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) for Resident #32 dated 10/8/22 documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 9, indicating moderately impaired cognition. The MDS identified Resident #32 required assistance of one person with walking and transfers. Resident #32 MDS included diagnoses of non-Alzheimer's dementia, depression, cerebrovascular disease, and hypothyroidism. The Incident/Accident Report dated 9/7/22 documented that Resident #32 attempted suicide by wrapping a phone cord around her neck. Record review of a undated document titled Self Reports to the Iowa Department of Inspections and Appeals (DIA) for the facility lacked documentation of a report of Resident #32 suicide attempt on 9/7/22. During an interview on 11/30/22 at 3:26 p.m. the Director of Nursing (DON) verified the facility did not report the suicide attempt to the DIA. The DON reported she did not know that a suicide attempt needed to be reported to DIA. A undated facility policy on Self Reports to DIA directed staff to report a suicide attempt regardless of injury to DIA.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

  • "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
  • "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s), $47,996 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 8 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $47,996 in fines. Higher than 94% of Iowa facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
  • • Grade D (48/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 48/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Clearview Home's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns Clearview Home an overall rating of 3 out of 5 stars, which is considered average nationally. Within Iowa, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This mid-range rating indicates the facility meets federal standards but may have areas for improvement.

How is Clearview Home Staffed?

CMS rates Clearview Home's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 55%, which is 9 percentage points above the Iowa average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs.

What Have Inspectors Found at Clearview Home?

State health inspectors documented 8 deficiencies at Clearview Home during 2022 to 2024. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 7 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Clearview Home?

Clearview Home is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 82 certified beds and approximately 72 residents (about 88% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in Mount Ayr, Iowa.

How Does Clearview Home Compare to Other Iowa Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Iowa, Clearview Home's overall rating (3 stars) is below the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (55%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Clearview Home?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations and the facility's high staff turnover rate.

Is Clearview Home Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, Clearview Home has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 3-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Iowa. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Clearview Home Stick Around?

Staff turnover at Clearview Home is high. At 55%, the facility is 9 percentage points above the Iowa average of 46%. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?

Was Clearview Home Ever Fined?

Clearview Home has been fined $47,996 across 1 penalty action. The Iowa average is $33,559. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.

Is Clearview Home on Any Federal Watch List?

Clearview Home is not on any federal watch list. The most significant is the Special Focus Facility (SFF) program, which identifies the bottom 1% of nursing homes nationally based on persistent, serious quality problems. Not being on this list means the facility has avoided the pattern of deficiencies that triggers enhanced federal oversight. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review the facility's inspection history directly.