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
F0806
D

Failure to Accommodate Resident Food Preferences

Greenville, Texas Survey Completed on 08-13-2025

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 the facility failed to accommodate a resident's documented food preferences and dislikes, specifically regarding tomato products and green peas. Despite the resident's dietary card indicating these dislikes, the resident received meals containing these items on multiple occasions, including buttered peas, mixed vegetables with green peas, and spaghetti with tomato meat sauce. The resident, who had intact cognition and was independent with eating, reported to staff that she did not like these foods, yet continued to receive them. The resident expressed that her preferences were not being considered, and photographic evidence was provided to support her claims. Interviews with the Dietary Manager confirmed awareness of the resident's dislikes and an expectation that alternatives should be provided when these items were on the menu. However, the Dietary Manager was not aware of the most recent incident and stated that the cook was responsible for ensuring appropriate substitutions. The Administrator also confirmed that food preferences and dislikes were expected to be followed, with oversight by the Dietary Manager through spot checks. Review of facility policy indicated a requirement to accommodate individual resident needs and preferences.

An unhandled error has occurred. Reload 🗙