Failure to Provide Palatable, Preferred, and Timely Meals and Snacks
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide food and drink that met residents' preferences for temperature, flavor, consistency, and appearance. Multiple residents reported that meals were unpalatable, unattractive, and often served at inappropriate temperatures. Specific complaints included food being tasteless, poor in appearance, and either too hot or too cold. One resident, who was on a pureed diet despite being able to swallow without difficulty, repeatedly requested a regular diet and expressed dissatisfaction with the pureed food. Another resident reported not receiving preferred flavors of nutritional supplements, while others noted missing or insufficient meal components, such as eggs at breakfast, and a lack of meat options. Residents also indicated they were not informed of menu changes and were unaware of available alternatives. Observations during meal service revealed significant delays, with lunch arriving nearly an hour late, and residents expressing dissatisfaction with both the taste and presentation of the food. Some residents resorted to using their own food or having family bring meals from outside due to dissatisfaction with facility offerings. Additionally, there were issues with the availability and distribution of snacks. One resident reported being denied a snack at night because the facility had run out, and others noted that snacks were not consistently available or distributed, especially if not specifically labeled for individual residents. Interviews with dietary staff and review of facility records confirmed that resident food preferences were not consistently entered or followed in the dietary system, particularly after a recent menu and program change. The dietary manager acknowledged missing or incomplete entries of resident preferences. The facility's policy required identification and accommodation of individual food preferences, timely provision of alternatives, and consistent snack availability, but these standards were not met, as evidenced by resident complaints and staff interviews.