MissouriSikeston

Clearview Nursing Center

430 Salcedo Road, Sikeston, MO 63801 · Scott County · 90 certified beds · avg 61 residents/day · certified since May 17, 1995

Part of chain: JAMES & JUDY LINCOLN (56 facilities, chain avg rating 2.4★)

4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.89
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

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

Health inspection rating: ★★★★☆4/5 · 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.

All citations in the current public record (26)

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
Mar 5, 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.
Mar 5, 2026D · 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 5, 2026D · 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.
Mar 5, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility used bed rails without first trying safer alternatives, or without assessing the resident's safety risk, discussing the risks and benefits with the resident or family, getting consent, and installing the rails correctly.
Mar 5, 2026D · 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 5, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not regularly inspect bed frames, mattresses, and bed rails for safety, or the rails and mattresses were not attached safely to the frames.
Mar 5, 2026D · 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.
Mar 5, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not make sure its nurse aides had the skills needed to care for residents, including training in dementia care and abuse prevention.
Dec 6, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not honor residents' right to form and take part in resident or family groups, such as a resident council.
Dec 6, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not honor residents' rights to request, refuse, or stop treatment, to decline participation in medical research, or to make an advance directive — a written statement of their wishes for future medical care.
Dec 6, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs.
Dec 6, 2024D · 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.
Dec 6, 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.
Dec 6, 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.
Dec 6, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility's medication error rate was 5 percent or higher — meaning too many doses were given incorrectly, such as the wrong drug, dose, or time.
Dec 6, 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.
Dec 6, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not make sure its nurse aides had the skills needed to care for residents, including training in dementia care and abuse prevention.
Oct 20, 2023F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not designate a qualified infection preventionist — a trained person responsible for running the infection prevention and control program.
Oct 20, 2023D · 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.
Oct 20, 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.
Oct 20, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail.
Oct 20, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide care that took into account residents' past trauma or their cultural backgrounds. Care is supposed to be sensitive to what residents have lived through and where they come from.
Oct 20, 2023D · 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.
Oct 20, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service.
Oct 20, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not make sure its nurse aides had the skills needed to care for residents, including training in dementia care and abuse prevention.
Aug 28, 2023D · 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

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (9 → 8).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202390F
202490D
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)

No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.

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

MeasureThis facilityMissouri avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)4.893.663.95top 10% in Missouri; top 15% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.450.490.69top 44% in Missouri; bottom 29% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing4.273.223.50top 12% in Missouri; top 16% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.380.330.48top 23% in Missouri; bottom 49% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)41.056.045.8top 15% in Missouri; top 39% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)44.447.842.9top 44% in Missouri; bottom 45% 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 4.00, RN 0.37, weekend 3.50. Staffing rating: 4/5.

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: 2/5 · long-stay residents: 2/5 · short-stay residents: 2/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Corporation

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Lincoln, JamesIndividual5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest50%01/01/1999
Lincoln, JudyIndividual5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest50%01/01/1999
Crane, GaryIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE01/01/1999
Drake, TimothyIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE01/01/1999
McMullin, SandraIndividualW-2 Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE09/24/2014
Stutts, CharlotteIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE01/01/1999

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
Hunter Acres Caring Center0.5 miSikeston, MO★★★☆☆4/5
Sikeston Convalescent Center1.2 miSikeston, MO★★★☆☆4/5
Annie's Garden Skilled Nursing2.1 miSikeston, MO—/5
Delta South Nursing & Rehabilitation2.5 miSikeston, MO★★★★☆4/5
Bertrand Nursing and Rehab Center8.0 miBertrand, MO★★★★☆5/5
Cotton Point Living Center9.0 miMatthews, MO★★★☆☆4/5
Daybreak Nursing Center9.0 miSikeston, MO★★★★☆5/5
Aspire Senior Living East Prairie13.7 miEast Prairie, MO★★★☆☆4/5
Prairie View Skilled Nursing18.5 miBloomfield, MO★★☆☆☆4/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Sikeston →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 265614.