Above average — CMS composite of the measures below.
A standard survey is most likely before around October 2026
Estimate from public CMS data, current as of July 2026. Survey timing is at the state agency's discretion.
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Medilodge Of Yale during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident with muscle weakness and impaired mobility was observed multiple times without prescribed heel boots in place, despite a care plan and physician order requiring their use to prevent skin breakdown. Staff failed to document the intervention in the care plan or CNA Kardex, and there was no record of refusal by the resident. The boots were found stored away, and both the resident and family reported they had not seen the boots used for an extended period.
Two residents with diabetes did not receive appropriate assessment, monitoring, or adjustment of their blood glucose levels. Blood sugar checks and sliding scale insulin were discontinued or not ordered, despite ongoing elevated glucose readings and care plans indicating the need for monitoring. Staff interviews confirmed the lack of monitoring, and the facility lacked a policy for diabetes management.
A resident with no cognitive impairment reported that the facility would not allow them to use their preferred incontinence pads, which they had purchased themselves. The facility staff removed the pads, citing a corporate directive, but could not provide documentation of this policy. The resident's daughter, who is not the guardian, signed off on the grievance form, but the resident is their own responsible party. The facility failed to offer an alternative option or inform the resident of their rights regarding this change.
The facility failed to implement fall interventions for a resident with multiple diagnoses, including Huntington's Disease and Dementia. Despite the care plan requiring a mat next to the bed to prevent falls, observations confirmed the mat was missing on multiple occasions. The DON acknowledged the expectation to follow care plans, highlighting a deficiency in the resident's care.
The facility failed to timely document and monitor a change in condition for a resident with dementia, diabetes, and hypertension, leading to a delay in diagnosing and treating a potential UTI. Symptoms were noted on 5/14/24, but a urinalysis was not ordered until 5/17/24 and collected on 5/20/24, with results received on 5/22/24. The facility's policies did not address monitoring changes in condition or implementing care planned interventions.
A resident with a history of Congestive Heart Failure and Gastro-Esophageal Reflux Disease experienced severe pain and discomfort throughout the night. Despite repeated complaints and visible distress, appropriate medical intervention was delayed. The DON's decision to delay the transfer to the hospital until they could personally assess the resident further exacerbated the situation, leading to the resident's hospitalization and subsequent death.
Failure to Implement Care Plan Interventions for Heel Boots
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency occurred when the facility failed to implement care plan interventions for the use of heel boots for a resident identified as being at risk for impaired skin integrity. Despite a care plan dated 06/04/25 specifying the use of Prevalon style off-loading boots to both lower extremities while in bed, multiple observations over several days showed the resident in bed or in a recliner without heel boots in place and with heels resting directly on surfaces. No extra pillows or heel boots were observed at the bedside, and the boots were later found stored in a closet. The resident, who had diagnoses including muscle weakness, high blood pressure, and difficulty walking, required substantial assistance for transfers and lower body dressing, and was dependent on staff for these activities. Record review and staff interviews revealed that although there was an order for heel boots, the intervention was not entered into the care plan or the CNA Kardex, and there was no documentation of the resident refusing the intervention. The resident and their family reported that the boots had not been used for some time, despite being present daily. The facility's policy requires that comprehensive care plans include measurable objectives and interventions to meet residents' needs, but in this case, the required intervention for heel boots was not implemented or documented.
Failure to Monitor and Manage Blood Glucose Levels in Diabetic Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to adequately assess, monitor, and control blood glucose levels for two residents with diabetes. For one resident, blood sugar monitoring and sliding scale insulin coverage were discontinued based on pharmacy recommendations, and although blood glucose levels remained consistently elevated, no further adjustments to insulin dosages were made after a certain date. Documentation showed that the majority of blood glucose readings were above the normal range, and communications regarding high blood sugar levels did not result in changes to the treatment plan. The resident reported that their blood sugars were out of control but had not discussed this with staff, and the nurse practitioner was unaware of the ongoing elevated levels. For another resident, there was a lack of ongoing blood sugar monitoring despite a history of worsening diabetes and hospital discharge instructions to continue both sliding scale and long-acting insulin with tight glycemic control. After an initial period of frequent blood sugar checks, documentation of blood glucose monitoring ceased, and there were no active orders for blood sugar checks or sliding scale insulin. The resident's care plan included monitoring glucose levels, but this intervention was not consistently implemented. Staff interviews confirmed that blood sugar checks were not being performed, and the facility did not have a policy for insulin sliding scale or diabetes/insulin orders.
Failure to Honor Resident's Preference for Incontinence Products
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to honor a resident's preference for incontinence products. The resident, who has diagnoses including Cerebral Infarction with Left Hemiplegia, Congestive Heart Failure, and Depression, reported that the facility would not allow them to use their preferred incontinence pads on the bed. Despite the resident having no cognitive impairment and purchasing their own pads, the facility staff removed them, citing a directive from the facility's corporate ownership to discontinue their use due to concerns about skin breakdown and maceration. The resident's daughter, who is not the resident's guardian, signed off on the grievance form, but the resident is their own responsible party. The facility's Director of Nursing and the Nursing Home Administrator confirmed the discontinuation of the incontinence pads but could not provide any policy or documentation supporting this directive. The facility's policy on Resident Rights states that residents should be informed of their rights and any changes in facility rules, but there was no documentation provided to the resident regarding the discontinuation of the pads. The resident was not offered an alternative option or a choice to keep the pads, leading to a failure in honoring the resident's preference and rights.
Failure to Implement Fall Interventions Per Care Plan
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement fall interventions as per the care plan for a resident diagnosed with Huntington's Disease, Schizoaffective Disorder, Dementia, and Hypertension. The resident, who had a moderate cognitive impairment, was observed on multiple occasions without a mat on the floor next to their bed, despite the care plan specifying this intervention to mitigate fall risk. Observations on three separate occasions over two days confirmed the absence of the mat, which was a required intervention initiated months earlier. The Director of Nursing (DON) acknowledged that the interventions should be used as needed for the resident's condition. The facility's policy on comprehensive care plans mandates the development and implementation of person-centered care plans with measurable objectives and timeframes. However, the failure to place the mat as specified in the care plan indicates non-compliance with this policy, leading to a deficiency in the resident's care.
Failure to Timely Document and Monitor Change in Condition
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to document and monitor a change in condition timely and follow the care plan for a resident with Unspecified Dementia, Type II Diabetes, and Hypertension. The resident, who was significantly cognitively impaired and required extensive assistance with Activities of Daily Living, exhibited symptoms of a potential urinary tract infection (UTI) including cloudy/mucous in urine and increased combativeness. Despite these symptoms being noted on 5/14/24, a urinalysis (UA) was not ordered until 5/17/24 and was not collected until 5/20/24. The results, which indicated abnormal findings, were not received until 5/22/24. The delay in obtaining and processing the UA was attributed to the facility's limited access to lab services over the weekend and the hospice nurse's initial assessment that did not raise concerns about the resident's condition on 5/16/24. The Director of Nursing (DON) and Corporate Employee A later explained that the resident's symptoms did not meet McGreer's criteria for infection and could have been related to hydration issues due to the resident's incontinence and history of kidney stones and UTIs. The facility's policies on Notification of Changes and Comprehensive Care Plan did not address monitoring a resident following a potential change in condition or implementing care planned interventions. The Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) stated that it is her expectation for nurses to monitor for changes in condition, but the facility's failure to do so in this case resulted in a delay in diagnosing and treating the resident's UTI. The DON also noted that the resident had a history of pulling out IVs, which complicated their treatment for previous UTIs. The lack of timely documentation and monitoring, as well as the absence of specific guidelines in the facility's policies, contributed to the deficiency identified by the surveyors.
Failure to Promptly Address Acute Change in Condition
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to promptly identify and intervene for an acute change in condition for one resident, resulting in the resident experiencing pain and hospitalization. The resident, who had a history of Congestive Heart Failure and Gastro-Esophageal Reflux Disease, began complaining of pain around 10:00 PM. Despite the resident's repeated complaints and visible discomfort, including vomiting and difficulty finding a comfortable position, the nurse only administered Tylenol around 5:00 AM after consulting with the on-call physician. The resident expressed a desire to go to the hospital, but the transfer was delayed by the Director of Nursing (DON) who wanted to assess the resident first. The DON did not arrive until around 8:00 AM, by which time the resident's condition had worsened significantly, leading to a 911 call and subsequent hospitalization where the resident died in the emergency room. Interviews with staff revealed that the resident's pain and discomfort were evident throughout the night, but appropriate medical intervention was delayed. The night shift caregiver reported that the resident's pain level was extremely high, and the resident had been asking to go to the hospital. The nurse on duty had to wait for the on-call physician's orders and only administered Tylenol, which was ineffective. The DON's decision to delay the transfer until they could personally assess the resident further exacerbated the situation. The resident's vital signs were abnormal, and despite the staff's concerns, the transfer was put on hold. The DON admitted to not being aware of the resident's vital signs during the initial call and did not communicate with the on-call physician about the decision to delay the transfer. The resident's condition continued to deteriorate, and it was only after the next shift nurse observed the resident's severe pain and emesis that 911 was called. The resident was eventually sent to the hospital but died shortly after arrival. The facility's failure to promptly address the resident's acute change in condition and the delay in transferring the resident to the hospital were significant factors in the resident's adverse outcome.
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 16 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 Yale
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Regency On The Lake - Fort Gratiot | 16.7 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| Medilodge Of Port Huron | 16.7 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| Marlette Community Hospital Ltcu | 20.2 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| Sanilac Medical Care Facility | 20.3 mi | ★★★★★ | 12 | 0 |
| The Orchards At Armada | 20.7 mi | ★★★★★ | 2 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Medilodge Of Yale.
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 July 2026) and official state health department websites.