Medilodge of Rogers City
Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.
Medilodge of Rogers City has a Trust Grade of B+, indicating it is above average and recommended for families considering this option. It ranks #54 out of 422 nursing homes in Michigan, placing it in the top half of the state, and is the only facility in Presque Isle County. However, the facility is experiencing a worsening trend, with issues increasing from 2 in 2024 to 7 in 2025. Staffing is a strong point, receiving a 5/5 star rating with a low turnover rate of 29%, which is significantly below the state average, indicating that staff members are likely familiar with residents' needs. While there have been no fines, a serious concern was noted where a resident's bowel movements were not adequately monitored, and there were issues with food safety standards not being met due to improper sanitizing of dishware. Overall, while Medilodge has strengths in staffing and a solid reputation, the recent rise in issues is a point for families to consider carefully.
- Trust Score
- B+
- In Michigan
- #54/422
- Safety Record
- Moderate
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ✓ Good
- 29% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 19 points below Michigan's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Michigan facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 73 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than 97% of Michigan nursing homes. RNs are the most trained staff who catch health problems before they become serious.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 14 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
-
5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Low Staff Turnover (29%) · Staff stability means consistent care
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover is low (29%)
19 points below Michigan average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, staff retention, fire safety.
The Bad
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 14 deficiencies on record
Aug 2025
1 deficiency
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
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation pertains to intakes 2589937 and 2580729.Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2025
5 deficiencies
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #22 (R22)
R22 was first admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including dementia, anxiety disorder, depr...
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
Notification of Changes
(Tag F0580)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This deficiency pertains to intake MI00152410
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify the resident r...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0605
(Tag F0605)
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 limit the duration of a PRN (as needed) psychotropic medication to...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Incontinence Care
(Tag F0690)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a physician's order was obtained for independent urinary catheterization, and failed to ensure safe and sanitary pract...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0726
(Tag F0726)
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 accurately transcribe medication orders for one Resident (#330) out...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2025
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(E)
📢 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
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation pertains to intake: MI00150288.
Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide an environme...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2024
2 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Incontinence Care
(Tag F0690)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to evaluate the removal of a urinary catheter and ensure urology services were provided for one Resident (#20) of four residents ...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to identify and implement corrective action in response t...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2023
5 deficiencies
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure appropriate written communication was shared in a timely man...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Incontinence Care
(Tag F0690)
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 maintain appropriate measures to prevent Catheter Ass...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0757
(Tag F0757)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from unnecessary medications for two Residents (#26 and #39) out of five residents reviewed for un...
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 maintain proper transmission based precautions for two (Resident #3 and Resident #24) of three residents in transmission base...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0921)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, and interview the facility failed to provide a safe, functional, and sanitary environment in the facility's laundry, and at two exterior entrances, resulting in the increased pot...
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
- • Grade B+ (83/100). Above average facility, better than most options in Michigan.
- • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Michigan facilities.
- • 29% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 19 points below Michigan's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
- • 14 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
About This Facility
What is Medilodge Of Rogers City's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns Medilodge of Rogers City an overall rating of 5 out of 5 stars, which is considered much above average nationally. Within Michigan, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.
How is Medilodge Of Rogers City Staffed?
CMS rates Medilodge of Rogers City's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 29%, compared to the Michigan average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Medilodge Of Rogers City?
State health inspectors documented 14 deficiencies at Medilodge of Rogers City during 2023 to 2025. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm and 13 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Medilodge Of Rogers City?
Medilodge of Rogers City is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by MEDILODGE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 90 certified beds and approximately 79 residents (about 88% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in Rogers City, Michigan.
How Does Medilodge Of Rogers City Compare to Other Michigan Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Michigan, Medilodge of Rogers City's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (29%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Medilodge Of Rogers City?
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 Medilodge Of Rogers City Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, Medilodge of Rogers City 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 5-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Michigan. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.
Do Nurses at Medilodge Of Rogers City Stick Around?
Staff at Medilodge of Rogers City tend to stick around. With a turnover rate of 29%, the facility is 17 percentage points below the Michigan average of 46%. Low turnover is a positive sign. It means caregivers have time to learn each resident's needs, medications, and personal preferences. Consistent staff also notice subtle changes in a resident's condition more quickly. Registered Nurse turnover is also low at 24%, meaning experienced RNs are available to handle complex medical needs.
Was Medilodge Of Rogers City Ever Fined?
Medilodge of Rogers City 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 Medilodge Of Rogers City on Any Federal Watch List?
Medilodge of Rogers City 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.