Not rated by CMS — ratings are suppressed for new or low-volume facilities.
The next survey window likely opens around November 2026
Estimate from public CMS data, current as of June 2026. Survey timing is at the state agency's discretion.
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Clarksville Nursing Home during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
The facility failed to ensure that communal shower water temperatures were consistently comfortable and adequately monitored, resulting in fluctuating and often low temperatures in two of three shower rooms. Several cognitively intact male residents who were independent or needed limited assistance with bathing reported that shower water was either hot or cold, did not stay warm for the entire shower, or was only warm and not as hot as desired, despite appearing clean and appropriately groomed. Direct observations showed shower temperatures on two halls ranging from 85°F to just over 105°F, with rapid drops below 100°F after initially warming. CNAs and an LVN reported few or no complaints and relied on informal adjustments rather than systematic checks, while the Maintenance Director acknowledged he did not routinely measure or document shower temperatures, was unaware of the inadequate temperatures, and noted equipment issues such as a nonfunctioning circulator and recent water heater replacement. The DON stated she did not monitor shower temperatures and had not received complaints, and the Administrator was unaware that temperatures were not being monitored, with no facility policy in place for shower water temperatures despite state and federal guidance on safe bathing ranges.
A resident with cognitive and physical impairments experienced a violation of dignity and respect when a CNA spoke to her in a rude tone, witnessed by another resident. The incident was reported, and the CNA was terminated due to her negative attitude. The facility's policies emphasize the importance of treating residents with respect, which was not upheld in this case.
A facility failed to accurately complete a PASRR Level I screening for a resident with PTSD and major depressive disorder. The screening incorrectly indicated no mental illness, despite the resident's diagnoses. The social worker was unaware that PTSD could be a PASRR positive diagnosis, and the administrator acknowledged the oversight, which was only corrected after surveyor intervention.
A resident with visual impairment and other medical conditions did not receive a required occupational therapy evaluation for a coffee cup lid, as ordered by a physician. The facility failed to follow the physician's order, leading to a deficiency in care planning. Staff interviews revealed confusion about the order's status, resulting in a lack of action to address the resident's needs.
A resident with heart failure and shortness of breath did not receive proper respiratory care due to a failure to change the filter on their oxygen concentrator. The filter was observed to be dirty on multiple occasions, and staff interviews revealed that the facility's policy of weekly filter cleaning was not followed. This oversight could have put the resident at risk for respiratory complications.
Failure to Maintain Consistently Comfortable Shower Water Temperatures
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment by not ensuring that water temperatures in two of three communal showers were maintained at a comfortable level for residents. Surveyors reviewed records and interviewed three cognitively intact male residents who used the showers and were generally independent or required limited assistance with bathing. One resident with cerebrovascular disease, diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, bipolar disorder, anemia, major depressive disorder, and anxiety reported that the shower water was either hot or cold and that the shower "is not worth a crud," although he appeared clean, odor free, and appropriately dressed. Another resident with COPD, hypertension, Parkinson’s disease, peripheral vascular disease, and dementia stated that the water did not stay warm enough for the entire shower, while a third resident with congestive heart failure, atherosclerotic heart disease, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, and osteoporosis reported that the water was usually just warm and not as hot as he would like. Observations of the shower rooms on two halls showed that the water temperatures did not reach or maintain a consistently warm range. On the 300 hall, after running the shower for three minutes, the water temperature remained at 85°F; later, after five minutes, it reached 108°F but then dropped back down to 85°F. On the 100 hall, the water temperature reached 103.5°F after three minutes but immediately dropped to 95°F, and a subsequent test showed the water reaching 105°F after three minutes and then dropping below 95°F. Review of facility grievances and resident council minutes for the prior three months did not reveal any documented concerns about shower water temperatures. Staff interviews revealed inconsistent awareness and monitoring of water temperatures. One CNA stated that sometimes water was shut off for repairs with advance notice, that she let the water run to reach a good temperature, and that although some residents wanted hotter water, she believed it was warm enough to complete showers. Another CNA reported no trouble with water temperatures and no resident complaints, stating she adjusted the temperature as needed. An LVN stated that occasionally a resident would say the water was not as hot as they would like, but not that it was cold, and that she would submit a maintenance work order if it occurred consistently. The Maintenance Director acknowledged he was not aware that the 100 and 300 hall showers were not reaching and maintaining a comfortable temperature, did not keep records of shower water temperatures, and had not been routinely taking or documenting them. He described recent water heater replacement issues, noted that the water circulator was out of service, and confirmed that the water temperatures failed to maintain his stated standard of 108°F to 112°F in resident restrooms. The DON stated she did not monitor shower water temperatures and had not received complaints, and the Administrator stated she was not aware that shower water temperatures were not monitored and that she expected weekly monitoring. The facility did not have a policy for shower water temperatures, despite state and federal guidance describing generally accepted safe ranges for bathing water. Title 26 of the Texas Administrative Code cited in the report states that the generally accepted safe range for resident bathing is 100°F to 120°F, with a maximum of 120°F to prevent scalding, and notes that potential for injury can occur below 100°F depending on the individual and exposure time. The State Operations Manual excerpt referenced in the report identifies safe temperature for bathing as 100°F or below, while acknowledging that burns can occur even below 100°F depending on condition and exposure. The facility’s failure to maintain and monitor shower water temperatures within a consistently comfortable range, lack of documentation of temperatures, lack of a specific policy for shower water temperatures, and limited oversight by nursing leadership and administration contributed to the deficiency in providing a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment for residents using the communal showers.
Resident Dignity and Respect Violation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to treat a resident with respect and dignity, as evidenced by an incident involving a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) and a resident. The resident, who had a history of slurred speech, anxiety disorder, muscle weakness, and hemiplegia following a stroke, required maximal assistance for activities of daily living. During an interaction, the CNA spoke to the resident in a rude tone, which was witnessed by another resident. The CNA reportedly told the resident, "Oh no ma'am, we are not fixing to do this because I am not going to be the one," which was perceived as disrespectful and hurtful by the resident. The incident was reported by the witnessing resident to the facility's administration and Director of Nursing (DON), who assured the resident that such behavior would not be tolerated. The CNA involved in the incident acknowledged the event, explaining that the resident had become upset when the metal part of a gait belt accidentally hit her. The CNA claimed to have apologized and reported the incident to her charge nurse. However, the CNA was subsequently terminated from her position at the facility. Interviews with other staff members and residents revealed mixed perceptions of the CNA's behavior, with some describing her as a good worker, while others noted her loud demeanor and occasional rudeness. The DON and Administrator confirmed that the CNA was let go due to her negative attitude, which was not conducive to the facility's environment. The facility's policies on resident rights and dignity emphasize the importance of treating residents with respect, which was not upheld in this incident.
Inaccurate PASRR Level I Screening for Resident with Mental Illness
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure the accuracy of the Pre-Admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) Level I assessment for a resident, which did not reflect the resident's mental health status. The resident, who was readmitted to the facility, had a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and later received a diagnosis of major depressive disorder. Despite these diagnoses, the PASRR Level I screening incorrectly indicated that the resident did not have a mental illness. This oversight was identified during a survey, and it was noted that the facility had not updated the PASRR Level I screening to reflect the new diagnosis until prompted by the surveyor. The facility's policy required that if a resident had a qualifying mental illness diagnosis, the PASRR Level I should be marked accordingly, and any changes should be communicated to the local health authority using a 1012 form. However, the social worker was unaware that PTSD could be a PASRR positive diagnosis, leading to the failure to update the screening. The administrator acknowledged that the screening should have been marked to indicate the presence of a mental illness, which would have allowed for an evaluation by the local health authority and potentially provided PASRR services to the resident.
Failure to Implement Physician Order for Occupational Therapy Evaluation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for a resident, identified as Resident #28, who had multiple medical conditions including exudative age-related macular degeneration, muscle weakness, unsteadiness on feet, lack of coordination, and a cognitive communication deficit. The resident had a history of spilling coffee, which resulted in a minor burn, and was supposed to be evaluated by occupational therapy for a coffee cup lid as per a physician's order dated 03/31/2024. However, this evaluation was not conducted, and the order was not followed, leading to a deficiency in care planning. The report details that the resident was independent in some activities of daily living but required assistance with others due to her visual impairment and other conditions. Despite a physician's order for an occupational therapy evaluation to address the coffee spill incident, the facility did not implement this order. Interviews with staff revealed confusion about whether the order was a true physician's order or merely an intervention, leading to a lack of follow-through on the necessary evaluation. The facility's policies on comprehensive care plans and following physician orders were not adhered to, as evidenced by the failure to conduct the occupational therapy evaluation. Staff interviews indicated a lack of communication and understanding regarding the implementation of physician orders, contributing to the deficiency. The Director of Nursing and other staff acknowledged the expectation to follow physician orders, yet the order for the coffee cup lid evaluation was not executed, highlighting a gap in the facility's care planning process.
Failure to Maintain Oxygen Concentrator Filter
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide appropriate respiratory care for a resident, specifically by not changing the filter on an oxygen concentrator machine used by a resident. The resident, a male with heart failure and shortness of breath, was observed on multiple occasions with a dirty oxygen concentrator filter that had a thick layer of white/gray material. Despite being admitted recently, the filter was not checked or changed, which was against the facility's policy of weekly cleaning. Interviews with staff revealed that the nurses were supposed to check the concentrator filters weekly, but this was not done for the resident in question. The LVN and Hall Manager admitted to not checking the filter, and the ADON and DON acknowledged the oversight. The facility's policy required weekly cleaning of the filter, but this was not adhered to, potentially putting the resident at risk for respiratory complications.
What surveyors are citing around you — mapped
All 10 risk areas, ranked with evidence
Repeat citations, what's rising near you, and quality measures — ranked so department heads know exactly where to look first.
Illustrative
What surveyors actually found near you
We read the 18 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — and tell you exactly what happened, in plain English, matched to your record.
Resident with a documented fall history left unattended on the patio; found on the ground with a hip fracture.
Walk-in cooler logs missing for 12 days; expired supplements in the medication room fridge.
Illustrative
A prioritized, do-first checklist
Every risk area becomes concrete audit steps drawn from real citations at facilities like yours — run them this week, before your window opens.
Illustrative
Risk indicators are statistical estimates from public CMS data — not predictions, findings, or compliance advice.
Nursing homes near Clarksville
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Focused Care At Clarksville | 2 mi | — | 8 | 0 |
| Hill Nursing Home, Inc. | 23.9 mi | — | 0 | 0 |
| Memorial Heights Nursing Center | 24.2 mi | — | 10 | 0 |
| Heritage House At Paris Rehab & Nursing | 26.5 mi | — | 13 | 0 |
| Greenhill Villas | 28.7 mi | — | 5 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Clarksville Nursing Home.
100% money-back within 48 hours.
Trusted data, never guesswork. Every citation, penalty, rating and Plan of Correction on this page is sourced from public CMS records (latest release August 2026) and official state health department websites.