Medilodge of Southfield: Discharge Planning Failures - MI
The August 2025 complaint inspection turned up no progress notes addressing the resident's discharge preference. No care plan entries. No social service assessments that mentioned the lift. Nothing documenting which facilities had been contacted, which had been ruled out, or why.
The resident is identified in inspection records only as R138.
Social Services Director "C" reviewed R138's records during the inspection and confirmed the gaps personally. There were no details about what facilities had been attempted. No specifics of any kind. The SSD told inspectors they would follow up with Staff "D," a second employee whose role in the situation the inspection report does not describe.
That follow-up never materialized. By the time the survey closed, no additional documentation had been produced and no further information had been provided.
The violation was cited under F0745, which covers the right of residents to participate in discharge planning and the facility's obligation to support that participation in writing. Inspectors rated the harm level as minimal or potential, and noted that few residents were affected.
What the inspection surfaces is not a dramatic failure of physical care. No one was injured. But the gap it documents sits at the center of something residents in long-term care facilities depend on entirely: the ability to leave.
Discharge planning in a skilled nursing facility is not a formality. For residents who want to return to the community or transfer to another post-acute setting, the social services department is often the only mechanism through which that happens. They compile the options. They make the referrals. They document the process so that residents, families, and anyone reviewing the record later can see what was tried and what remains possible.
For R138, that mechanism had stalled somewhere between the resident's stated preference and the page. The resident had expressed what they needed. A lift, specifically. That detail had reached staff in some form, enough that the SSD acknowledged it during the survey. But it had not been written down in the places it needed to be written down, and the search for a suitable placement, if one had begun at all, had left no trace.
The facility's own discharge planning policy, dated October 2023, lays out the standard in plain language. The facility will document referrals made on a resident's behalf. It will update the care plan in response to information received. It will compile data on post-acute options, including providers in the resident's preferred geographic area, and present those options to the resident. The Social Services Director, or a designee, is responsible for that work.
None of that documentation existed for R138.
The SSD's acknowledgment during the survey that follow-up was needed, and then the absence of any follow-up before the survey ended, is the detail that lingers. It is not that the facility disputed the finding or argued the records existed somewhere else. The SSD confirmed the problem and described a next step. The next step did not happen.
R138's situation at the close of the inspection remained where it apparently had been before inspectors arrived: a resident with a specific need, a preference for a different setting, and no documented path toward either.
Full Inspection Report
The details above represent a summary of key findings. View the complete inspection report for Medilodge of Southfield from 2025-08-15 including all violations, facility responses, and corrective action plans.
Additional Resources
Data source: This article is based on inspection data downloaded directly from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) via Medicare.gov. CMS releases inspection reports in bulk; we publish the findings as documented by state surveyors in the official Form CMS-2567 Statement of Deficiencies.
Plan of correction: The CMS report we receive does not include the facility's plan of correction. Facilities submit plans of correction separately to state survey agencies and those responses may not be reflected in CMS data at the time of publication. The absence of a plan of correction in our data does not mean one was not filed. Readers who want information about corrective steps taken are encouraged to contact the facility directly or their state survey agency.
Corrections may have occurred: Inspection reports reflect conditions observed on the date of the survey. Facilities may have implemented corrections, staffing changes, additional training, or other remediation since the report was issued. We report what CMS provides and encourage readers to seek current information from the facility.
Editorial process: Inspection findings are extracted from CMS source documents and synthesized using AI, reviewed for factual accuracy against the original report by our editorial team.
Corrections: We strive for accuracy in everything we publish. If you believe any fact in this article is incorrect, please contact us with details, and we will review and correct it promptly.
Professional review: All content reviewed by Christopher F. Nesbitt, Sr., NH EMT & BU-trained Paralegal.
Last verified: October 20, 2026 · Our methodology
Medilodge of Southfield in Southfield, MI was cited for violations during a health inspection on August 15, 2025.
The August 2025 complaint inspection turned up no progress notes addressing the resident's discharge preference.
Health inspections identify deficiencies that facilities must correct. Violations range from minor documentation issues to serious safety concerns. Review the full report below for specific details and facility response.