Medilodge of Farmington: Wound Care Failures - MI
That resident, identified in the inspection report only as R906, was one of two cases that brought federal inspectors to Medilodge of Farmington on September 4, 2025, following a complaint. What they found in the medical records was a pattern of wounds discovered, noted, and then largely ignored.
The Director of Nursing, interviewed on September 3, acknowledged the concern with R906's pressure ulcer. She did not dispute the timeline.
The second case was, in some ways, harder to explain. R905 was admitted to Medilodge on July 29, 2025. On that same day, a nursing admission evaluation was completed. Under the skin assessment section, staff checked "no" when asked whether the resident had any identified skin conditions or wounds.
Two days later, on August 1, nurses and the Director of Nursing assessed R905 together and documented moisture-associated skin damage to the coccyx and redness on both heels. By August 3, the notes described a skin tear on the coccyx with a product called Triad applied, and photographs were taken. That same day, R905 was discharged.
A wound evaluation completed on the day of discharge classified the injury as a Category 1 skin tear on the right gluteus and marked it as present on admission. The wound measured 1.14 centimeters long and 0.78 centimeters wide, with an open wound bed and non-attached edges. Photographs from August 2 showed an open area on the right gluteal fold, in a location where, as inspectors noted, friction and shear forces would be heightened. The photographs also revealed scarring on the left gluteus that mirrored the wound's shape, suggesting this was not a new kind of injury for this resident.
No physician's order for wound treatment was ever written. Not when the wound was discovered on August 1. Not when the wound evaluation was completed on August 3. Not at any point during R905's stay.
The treatment administration records for July and August confirmed what the physician orders suggested: no treatments to R905's coccyx or right gluteus wound were administered during the entire admission.
When inspectors asked the Director of Nursing about the facility's process for handling new skin injuries, she described it clearly. When a skin impairment is identified, she said, the physician is notified, a new treatment order is entered, and the care plan is updated. Asked specifically about R905, she acknowledged that a physician's order should have been implemented to treat the wound, and that it should have been in place from admission.
R905 had been admitted with diagnoses including dysphagia and gastrostomy status, conditions that already required close medical management. The resident was discharged on August 3, five days after admission, with a wound that had been photographed but never formally treated, and that the facility's own documentation ultimately classified as present on arrival, though nothing in the admission evaluation reflected that.
The inspection report does not explain how a wound present on admission went undetected on the day of admission and undocumented for two days. It does not say whether the resident or their family was informed of the wound before discharge. It does not say where R905 went after leaving Medilodge.
What the record shows is that a resident arrived with a wound, stayed five days, and left with the same wound, still open, never treated.
R906's situation stretched across months. The wound appeared in early June. Summer passed. The care plan was written at the end of July. Inspectors arrived in September and found no documentation of whether anyone had ever determined how the wound happened or whether it could have been prevented.
The Director of Nursing sat across from inspectors on September 3 and confirmed what the records showed. There was no dispute about the facts. There was only the acknowledgment that things had not been done the way they were supposed to be done.
Full Inspection Report
The details above represent a summary of key findings. View the complete inspection report for Medilodge of Farmington from 2025-09-04 including all violations, facility responses, and corrective action plans.
Additional Resources
Data source: Official federal inspection data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).
Editorial process: AI-synthesized regulatory data, reviewed for accuracy by our editorial team.
Professional review: All content reviewed by Christopher F. Nesbitt, Sr., NH EMT & BU-trained Paralegal.
Last verified: July 1, 2026 · Our methodology
Medilodge of Farmington in Farmington, MI was cited for violations during a health inspection on September 4, 2025.
What they found in the medical records was a pattern of wounds discovered, noted, and then largely ignored.
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.