SOUTHFIELD VILLAGE
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Southfield Village has a Trust Grade of C+, indicating it is slightly above average but not exceptional. It ranks #289 out of 505 facilities in Indiana, placing it in the bottom half of the state, but is #10 out of 18 in St. Joseph County, meaning only nine local options are better. The facility is improving, with the number of issues declining from 8 in 2023 to 5 in 2024. Staffing is considered a strength, with a 4-star rating and a turnover rate of 36%, which is significantly below the state average of 47%, and there is more RN coverage than 91% of Indiana facilities. However, there have been concerns, including failing to store food properly in a sanitary manner, with instances of unsealed containers and dirty utensils, as well as not notifying physicians about elevated blood glucose levels for residents, highlighting areas that need improvement despite the overall positive staffing situation and lack of fines.
- Trust Score
- C+
- In Indiana
- #289/505
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 36% turnover. Near Indiana's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Indiana facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 60 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than 97% of Indiana nursing homes. RNs are the most trained staff who catch health problems before they become serious.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 26 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
-
4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (36%)
12 points below Indiana average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Near Indiana average (3.1)
Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities
10pts below Indiana avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
The Ugly 26 deficiencies on record
Oct 2024
5 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Notification of Changes
(Tag F0580)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to notify the physician of elevated blood glucose levels for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for blood glucose levels (Residents 7 and ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0625
(Tag F0625)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a copy of the Bed Hold Policy to a resident when admitted to the hospital for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for hospitalization.
Findin...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to have Care Plan meetings, quarterly, with residents and/or resident representatives for 2 of 2 residents who were reviewed for Care Plan mee...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure infection control practices were followed by 1 of 1 staff observed cleaning an isolation room and 1 of 1 staff observed...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to store and seal food in a sanitary manner related to sealing food appropriately in the walk-in cooler and failed to ensure servi...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2023
8 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a Quarterly MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment was completed ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan for 1 of 24 resid...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to update the fall care plan with a new intervention after a fall for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for falls. (Resident 9)
Finding includes:
Duri...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide grooming for a female resident with facial ha...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that physician orders were followed and the physician notified of a missed medication for 1out of 13 reviewed for medi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
5. During an observation on, 10/23/2023 at 3:16 P.M., Resident 47's oxygen tubing was undated.
During an observation on, 10/24/2023 at 9:39 A.M., Resident 47's oxygen tubing was undated.
During an obs...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to recognize a missed medication as a medication error and notify the pharmacy and physician for 1 out of 14 residents interviewe...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff wore the appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) during an aerosolizing procedure for 1 of 2 residents r...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2022
2 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0658
(Tag F0658)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure physician ordered dressing changes and wound care were admin...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident with severe cognitive impairment was adequately s...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2022
11 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan for anticoagulant and an antidepressant medication for 1 of 22 residents whose care plans were reviewed. ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to revise the comprehensive care plans for an arm sling use and falls for 2 of 22 residents reviewed for care plans. (Residents 2...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review, observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure showers were provided timely for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for ADL care (Activities of Daily Living). (Resident 46)
Fin...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0688
(Tag F0688)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a therapy recommended splint and sling were worn for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for positioning and mobility. (Resident ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure that a resident remain free from injury from a fall for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for accidents, (Resident 35)
Finding...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0692
(Tag F0692)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. A clinical record review was completed on 7/20/2022 at 8:48 A.M. Diagnoses included, but were not limited to: cerebral infarc...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure oxygen tubing and distilled water was dated and continuous positive airway pressure
(CPAP)/ bilevel positive airway pres...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the AIMS evaluation was completed for 2 of 2 res...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review, interview and observation, the facility failed to ensure medications were labeled appropriately and dated when opened in 1 of 2 medication storage observations. (RN 7 100 hall ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0805
(Tag F0805)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure recipes were followed for puree diets for 3 of ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure food items in the freezer were dated/labeled and sealed securely after opening and failed to ensure used by dates on fo...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • No major safety red flags. No abuse findings, life-threatening violations, or SFF status.
- • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Indiana facilities.
- • 36% turnover. Below Indiana's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • 26 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
About This Facility
What is Southfield Village's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns SOUTHFIELD VILLAGE an overall rating of 3 out of 5 stars, which is considered average nationally. Within Indiana, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This mid-range rating indicates the facility meets federal standards but may have areas for improvement.
How is Southfield Village Staffed?
CMS rates SOUTHFIELD VILLAGE's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 36%, compared to the Indiana average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Southfield Village?
State health inspectors documented 26 deficiencies at SOUTHFIELD VILLAGE during 2022 to 2024. These included: 26 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates Southfield Village?
SOUTHFIELD VILLAGE is owned by a government entity. Government-operated facilities are typically run by state, county, or municipal agencies. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 60 certified beds and approximately 51 residents (about 85% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in SOUTH BEND, Indiana.
How Does Southfield Village Compare to Other Indiana Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Indiana, SOUTHFIELD VILLAGE's overall rating (3 stars) is below the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (36%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Southfield Village?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?"
Is Southfield Village Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, SOUTHFIELD VILLAGE has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 3-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Indiana. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.
Do Nurses at Southfield Village Stick Around?
SOUTHFIELD VILLAGE has a staff turnover rate of 36%, which is about average for Indiana nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.
Was Southfield Village Ever Fined?
SOUTHFIELD VILLAGE has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.
Is Southfield Village on Any Federal Watch List?
SOUTHFIELD VILLAGE is not on any federal watch list. The most significant is the Special Focus Facility (SFF) program, which identifies the bottom 1% of nursing homes nationally based on persistent, serious quality problems. Not being on this list means the facility has avoided the pattern of deficiencies that triggers enhanced federal oversight. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review the facility's inspection history directly.