Menu Review and Nutritional Adequacy Deficiencies
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that menus were reviewed and approved for nutritional adequacy in accordance with nationally accredited standards. During a kitchen tour, it was revealed that the facility followed a three-week cycle menu, but the menus provided were not signed or dated by a qualified nutrition professional to confirm their adequacy. Additionally, the facility's dietitian was unaware of who developed or reviewed the menus, indicating a lack of oversight and accountability in the menu planning process. The surveyors found discrepancies in the dietary care provided to three residents. For instance, one resident's care plan included a physician's order for a specific dietary supplement twice a day, but this was not reflected in the resident's dietary records or meal tickets. Similarly, another resident's preferences and physician's orders were not accurately documented or followed, leading to inconsistencies in the meals served. These issues were compounded by the dietitian's admission that there was no formal system to ensure that dietary recommendations and updates were implemented. Interviews with residents and staff further highlighted the deficiencies. Residents reported receiving meals that did not match their documented preferences, and the dietitian acknowledged the lack of a formal follow-up system to verify that dietary changes were executed. The facility's electronic medical record system was supposed to link with the food service software to automatically update dietary information, but manual errors and communication breakdowns persisted, resulting in unmet nutritional needs and preferences for the residents.
Plan Of Correction
Element 1 This deficiency was corrected by having the NJ Ex Order 26.4(b)(1) and NJ Ex Order 26.4 Menus reviewed and approved by a Licensed Dietitian. Additionally, a Food Preference audit was performed to ensure that all resident food preferences were included in the facilities meal ticket system, and that the residents received meals based on their food preferences. Element 2 All residents have the potential to be affected by this deficiency. Element 3 A Food Preference audit was performed on 1/27/2025 to ensure all residents' food preferences were included in the facilities meal ticket system, and that the residents received meals based on their food preferences. During the audits, seven residents expressed additional food preferences, which were immediately added to the meal ticket system. Additionally, the food preference audit will continue to ensure that the facility remains in compliance with F803. Element 4 To maintain and monitor ongoing compliance, a Food Preference audit is being conducted by the dietitian or designee once a week for two months, then once every other week for two months, and then once a month for two months. Identified issues will be corrected as they are discovered, results will be reported to the Administrator and will be reviewed at quarterly Quality Assurance Performance Improvement meetings for six months to the Quality Assurance Performance Improvement team for review and action as necessary.
Penalty
Resources
Below are regulatory guidelines relevant to this citation:
Meal tickets and the menu did not match the food actually served. Surveyors observed that a resident with intact cognition and several other residents did not receive items listed on their tickets, including soup, salad, pineapple, English muffins, and pudding. The FSD said soup was not offered during summer months per company policy, and the Dietitian should have updated the tickets; Staff F acknowledged the mismatch, and the DON said the discrepancies had been an ongoing concern.
A resident with dysphagia and malnutrition received a mechanical soft lunch tray without gravy on the meat, and dietary staff could not identify or follow the correct menu and scoop sizes. The cook said she had not been told the proper scoop sizes, and the DM was unsure where the extended menus were. The next day, the DM served puree residents pinto beans and sausage using two 4-oz scoops instead of the 6-oz portion listed on the dietary spreadsheet. The RD, DON, and Administrator all stated the correct serving sizes and menu directions were expected to be followed.
Incorrect Modified Texture Diets Served: A resident with dysphagia and other residents on modified texture diets were served the wrong meal consistency after staff failed to read the full meal ticket. The resident received an unaltered piece of pizza, began choking in the dining room, and required the Heimlich maneuver and other emergency interventions. Staff later confirmed that residents ordered soft and bite sized, minced and moist, or other mechanically altered diets had been given incorrect foods.
Pureed Diet Menu Items Not Served: Seven residents ordered pureed diets were served lunch without the pureed wheat rolls listed on the approved menu. The cook verified the menu, pureed the broccoli and chicken, but forgot to puree the rolls, and all seven pureed trays were served without them. The CDM and Administrator confirmed the menu should be followed.
Dietary Staff Did Not Follow Ordered Therapeutic Diets and Resident Preferences: Two residents with severe cognitive impairment and swallowing-related diet needs were served meals that did not match their ordered diets or stated preferences. One resident ordered pureed meals with small portions and double protein but received divided portions that did not provide the ordered protein amount, while another resident who wanted meat ground into small pieces was served whole meat patties and ate little of the meal.
Menu portion sizes were not followed for chopped and puree diet items when staff used a 3 oz spoodle, a #8 dipper, and a #12 dipper instead of the #10 and #6 dippers listed on the preplanned menu. An employee and the Dietary Supervisor both confirmed the utensils used did not match the menu, and the Dietary Supervisor said the shortage of serving dippers/scoops contributed to the issue and that residents could potentially be affected by weight loss.
Meal tickets and menu items did not match served meals
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to follow the weekly menu by not providing soup daily as listed on the menu for 4 of 4 units, and it also failed to ensure that residents’ meal tickets matched the meals actually served. During surveyor observation and resident interviews, Resident ID #93, who had diagnoses including type 2 diabetes mellitus and heart failure and had a BIMS score of 15 of 15, stated that meal tickets did not always match what was served and that soup was not provided even though the slips indicated soup every day. During lunch service on 6/30/2026, surveyors observed that Resident ID #12 did not receive soup and was served Jello instead of chocolate pudding, Resident ID #45 did not receive a side salad, and Residents ID #12, 20, 56, and 76 did not receive pineapple listed on their meal tickets. During breakfast service on 7/1/2026, surveyors observed that Residents ID #12, 20, 56, and 76 did not receive English muffins listed on their meal tickets. The Food Service Director stated that the facility does not offer soup during the summer months per company policy and that the Dietitian should have updated the residents’ meal tickets for accuracy. Staff F acknowledged that the meal tickets and food served on the nursing units did not match, and the DON stated that residents are expected to receive the items listed on the menu and that discrepancies between menu listings and meal tickets had been an ongoing concern.
Incorrect meal portions and missing gravy on mechanical soft trays
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure meals served met residents’ nutritional needs during lunch service. For Resident #2, a male with morbid obesity, unspecified protein-calorie malnutrition, and a physician order for a regular diet with mechanical soft texture and thin liquids related to dysphagia, the lunch tray observed on 06/29/26 included stuffed bell peppers and okra, but the mechanical soft meat did not have gravy. During the observation, Dietary Manager C and [NAME] E both stated the mechanical soft bell pepper should have had gravy or some type of liquid consistency on it, and [NAME] E said she was not sure where the lunch menu was or what scoop size to use. During the same meal service, [NAME] E stated she had been the cook for about a month and had not been told by anyone, including the dietitian, about the scoop size to use. She said she used a large spoon for puree and a green scoop for regular and mechanical soft foods, but did not know the size of either utensil and served whatever scoop she had. Dietary Manager C also stated she was not sure where the extended menus were or what serving size should have been served for the regular, mechanical soft, or puree lunch. After calling a sister facility or the dietitian, she was told the mechanical soft serving size for stuffed bell pepper and okra should have been 4 ounces, while the regular diet should have received 1 stuffed bell pepper and 4 ounces of okra. When the surveyor and [NAME] E measured the mechanical soft bell pepper, it measured 3 ounces instead of the 4-ounce serving size. On 06/30/26, the Dietary Manager served two scoops of pinto beans and sausage using a 4-ounce scoop for two residents on a puree diet. Later, the Dietary Manager stated she was supposed to give 6 ounces and could not locate the dietary spreadsheet to verify the serving size. The Registered Dietitian stated the correct serving size should be used with all meals, that kitchen staff should use the spreadsheet when serving, and that the spreadsheet indicated the serving size for pinto beans and sausage as well as the need for gravy on mechanical soft meats. The DON and Administrator both stated they expected dietary staff to use the correct serving size and to provide gravy or sauce on mechanical soft diets when called for by the menu.
Incorrect Modified Texture Diets Served
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure mechanically altered diets were served as prescribed for 6 of 6 residents with physician-ordered modified texture diets. Resident 1 had diagnoses including hemiplegia/hemiparesis, failure to thrive, and dysphagia, and her records showed she required a mechanically altered diet with supervision while eating because of choking risk. Her physician order specified a heart healthy level 6 soft and bite sized diet, and her care plan also directed a soft and bite sized diet. On the evening of the incident, Resident 1 was served an incorrect diet and received an unaltered piece of pizza. She began choking in the dining room, and nursing staff responded with the Heimlich maneuver, abdominal thrusts, and back blows. The dislodged food was described as a piece of pizza crust. Nursing staff later confirmed that Resident 1 had been given the wrong food consistency and that the meal served to residents on mechanically altered diets that evening was incorrect. The same meal service issue affected other residents with modified texture diets, including residents with dysphagia, dementia, and cognitive impairment who were documented as needing mechanically altered, minced and moist, or soft and bite sized diets. During observation, staff were seen using diet slips to serve the midday meal, and the administrator stated that residents prescribed modified texture diets had received incorrect diets. The cook stated she had not read the whole meal ticket and only read the diet consistency, which led to the wrong meal being served.
Pureed Diet Menu Items Not Served
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to serve all menu items to seven residents who were ordered pureed diets. During a lunch meal observation, the cook reviewed the diet sheet, verified the menu items to be served, and stated there were seven residents prescribed pureed diets. She pureed eight servings of broccoli and chicken but did not puree the wheat rolls. During the continuous lunch service observation, all seven pureed diets were served without pureed wheat rolls. A menu review later showed that one wheat roll was included in each pureed diet on the approved menu. The cook stated she forgot to include the dinner roll in the pureed diets during preparation and service, and the CDM asked whether the roll had been added to the other pureed items, to which the cook replied no. The Administrator stated the menu should be followed.
Dietary Staff Did Not Follow Ordered Therapeutic Diets and Resident Preferences
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure dietary staff served meals that met residents’ therapeutic needs and preferences for 2 of 5 residents reviewed for diet orders. Resident #18 had diagnoses including diabetes, aphasia, and morbid obesity, was severely cognitively impaired with a BIMS score of 0, and was dependent on staff for eating. The resident’s physician order called for a regular diet with pureed texture, thin consistency, small portions, and double protein. During observation, dietary staff prepared pureed lunch items by blending three servings of country fried steak with beef broth and dividing the protein between two residents, giving Resident #18 1.5 servings instead of the ordered double protein and also dividing pureed carrots, mashed potatoes, and bread so the resident received 1.5 servings of each item. Resident #49 had diagnoses including stroke, chronic respiratory failure, and malnutrition, with severe cognitive impairment and dependence on staff for eating. The resident’s order was for a general diet with mechanical soft texture and nectar consistency for pleasure per request, and records noted dysphagia following cerebral infarction with speech therapy recommendations for pureed food. During observation, the resident was served a whole barbeque pork rib patty on one meal and a whole chicken fried steak patty on another, and staff had to cut up the meat or the resident refused to eat it. The resident stated she did not ask for meat to be served whole and wanted it ground into small pieces. The dietary manager stated the resident had previously sent back mechanical soft food and requested regular meat instead of ground meat.
Menu Portion Sizes Not Followed for Texture-Modified Diets
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to follow the planned menu and the posted scoop and dipper sizes for texture-modified diets. The Spring/Summer 2026 menu specified that chopped Hamburger Steak for lunch on Tuesday, 06/23/2026, was to be served with a #10 dipper, and Puree Lasagna for dinner that same day was to be served with a #6 dipper. On Wednesday, 06/24/2026, the menu specified that chopped Fried Chicken and Puree Fried Chicken for lunch were each to be served with a #10 dipper. The facility’s diet manual and menu policy stated that menus are to be preplanned, followed, and include the correct portion size for each modified diet item. During observations, a 3 oz. spoodle was used for chopped Hamburger Steak at lunch, a #8 dipper was used for Puree Lasagna at dinner, and a 3 oz. spoodle was used for chopped Fried Chicken while a #12 dipper was used for Puree Fried Chicken at lunch. The Dietary Supervisor and an employee both stated the menu was not followed and acknowledged that the utensils used were not equal to the portion sizes listed on the menu. The Dietary Supervisor also stated there was a shortage of serving dippers/scoops because some had broken, and that the residents could potentially be affected by weight loss from the menu not being followed.
Trusted data from CMS and state health departments
Every citation, penalty and Plan of Correction is sourced from public CMS records (latest release August 26, 2026) and official state health department websites — never guesswork.
In your survey window? See what surveyors are citing.
The Survey-Prep Report maps your facility's risk from 12 months of CMS and state citation data — what's being cited around you and what to check first. $129 one-time.