Stay Ahead of Compliance with Monthly Citation Updates


In your State Survey window and need a snapshot of your risks?

Survey Preparedness Report

One Time Fee
$79
  • Last 12 months of citation data in one tailored report
  • Pinpoint the tags driving penalties in facilities like yours
  • Jump to regulations and pathways used by surveyors
  • Access to your report within 2 hours of purchase
  • Easily share it with your team - no registration needed
Get Your Report Now →

Monthly citation updates straight to your inbox for ongoing preparation?

Monthly Citation Reports

$18.90 per month
  • Latest citation updates delivered monthly to your email
  • Citations organized by compliance areas
  • Shared automatically with your team, by area
  • Customizable for your state(s) of interest
  • Direct links to CMS documentation relevant parts
Learn more →

Save Hours of Work with AI-Powered Plan of Correction Writer


One-Time Fee

$49 per Plan of Correction
Volume discounts available – save up to 20%
  • Quickly search for approved POC from other facilities
  • Instant access
  • Intuitive interface
  • No recurring fees
  • Save hours of work
F0805
D

Failure to Provide Ordered Therapeutic Diet After Temporary Downgrade

Roseville, Minnesota Survey Completed on 05-21-2025

Penalty

No penalty information released
tooltip icon
The penalty, as released by CMS, applies to the entire inspection this citation is part of, covering all citations and f-tags issued, not just this specific f-tag. For the complete original report, please refer to the 'Details' section.

Summary

A deficiency occurred when a resident with a history of cerebral infarction, aphasia, and type 2 diabetes did not receive the ordered therapeutic diet. The resident was initially placed on a regular diet with soft, bite-sized textures (IDDSI Level 6) due to their medical condition. Following a dental extraction, a temporary order was placed for a softer, minced and moist diet (IDDSI Level 5) for two days, after which the resident was to resume their normal diet as comfortable. However, after the temporary order ended, the resident continued to receive the Level 5 diet instead of returning to the Level 6 diet as ordered. There was no documented reassessment of the resident's mouth or dental comfort, nor any conversation about diet preferences during this period. Multiple interviews with staff revealed that the process for updating diet orders involved communication between nursing and dietary departments, with orders entered into the electronic health record system and meal tickets printed accordingly. Despite the active order for a Level 6 diet, the resident continued to receive Level 5 meals, and staff could not explain the discrepancy. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the minced and moist diet, stating it was unappetizing and that they had not been reassessed or consulted about advancing their diet. Facility policy required regular review and documentation of residents' responses to therapeutic diets, but this was not followed in this case.

An unhandled error has occurred. Reload 🗙