Resident Food Preferences Restricted by Kosher Meal Policy
Summary
The facility did not ensure residents’ food preferences, choices, and beliefs were honored because it operated as a strict kosher facility and restricted access to non-kosher food for residents who were not kosher. The resident handbook stated that no non-kosher food of any kind could be brought into the facility, and a sign at the entrance stated that no outside food was permitted at any time. Staff interviews showed that residents were told outside food could only be brought in with prior arrangements and could only be eaten in a designated recreation area on the first floor, not in resident rooms or on the unit. Multiple residents reported dissatisfaction with these restrictions and described being unable to eat food brought by family or food they wanted from outside. One resident stated family could not bring food for them and that when a child did bring food, it had to be taken back home. Another resident said outside food such as pizza was only obtained on Fridays, while another stated they could not afford to order outside food regularly and had to rely on the facility’s food. A resident with diagnoses including CAD, HTN, ESRD, and hemiparesis, whose MDS documented intact cognition and a need for snacks between meals, stated that a child brought Jello cups that were confiscated and not returned because the facility was kosher, even though the resident was not kosher. Additional interviews confirmed that residents were limited to food ordered once weekly through the recreation department, with options such as Chinese, Italian, pizza, or deli food, and that family-brought food had to be eaten only in the recreation room or another designated area. Residents stated they were not allowed to eat outside food in their rooms or on the unit, and some said they were not informed of the kosher restriction before admission. During the resident council meeting, residents stated their food was not allowed in the facility and that they could only order food on Fridays, which limited their ability to eat foods they wanted. The facility assessment stated it would provide food and nutrition choices to meet personal preferences, but the observed practices and resident reports showed that residents’ individual food preferences were not consistently honored.
Penalty
Resources
Below are regulatory guidelines relevant to this citation:
A resident with PTSD, depression, and anxiety was placed in a room arrangement that required sharing a bathroom with male residents. After a naked male resident entered her room through the shared bathroom, she called police, stated she felt terrified and unsafe, and told staff she had a history of sexual assault. Staff confirmed the bathroom was shared with male residents and that the arrangement was not supposed to occur.
A resident with stroke-related left-sided weakness, hemiplegia, and dependence for transfers and toileting was moved into a remodeled room before the bathroom was ready. Staff took the resident to larger bathrooms on the hall because the room bathroom lacked a grab bar, and the resident reported embarrassment, difficulty with diarrhea, and an accident while waiting for assistance. Interviews showed the DON, Administrator, and Maintenance Director were not aware the room was not fully prepared when the resident moved in.
Delayed Provision of Bed Side Rails: A cognitively intact resident with Parkinson's disease, restless leg syndrome, rheumatoid arthritis, and chronic pain requested bed side rails to help with bed mobility and repositioning. Therapy documented that the resident would lay in bed if rails were available, but the request was not communicated or acted on promptly, and the bed did not have side rails when observed. Staff later stated side rails are usually installed the same day a request is made, and the DON acknowledged the delay should not have taken so long.
A resident with Alzheimer's disease, severely impaired cognition, and documented nutrition/hydration risk required partial to moderate assistance with eating and was care planned for assisted feeding with a general diet and thin liquids. During a breakfast observation, the resident was seated in a reclined Broda chair while staff placed food and beverages on an overbed table and attempted to offer chocolate milk and hot cereal without first positioning the resident upright, causing the resident to struggle to reach the cup. Facility policy on feeding required residents needing assistance to be positioned comfortably in an upright position, and the DON stated she expected residents to be upright whenever food or drink was offered, but there was no separate positioning policy in place.
A resident who was cognitively intact activated a call light during breakfast to request assistance with toileting and reported waiting approximately 1.5 to 2 hours before staff responded. Facility call light records confirmed the call was activated and not answered for over two hours. Staff interviews indicated that management had communicated expectations that call lights be answered within about 15–20 minutes, but this expectation was not met in this instance, resulting in a prolonged delay in meeting the resident’s expressed need for assistance.
A resident admitted with a right hip fracture and cognitively intact status had physician transfer orders for an orthopedic follow‑up visit and staple removal within two weeks, but staff did not schedule or complete this follow‑up as ordered. The resident reported not seeing the orthopedic surgeon after admission and stated that the staples remained in for a long time before being removed, which was painful. Record review showed the staples were removed more than seven weeks after admission, and the DON acknowledged the transfer orders were not carried out due to an oversight, despite the administrator’s expectation that admission/transfer orders be completed as instructed.
Failure to Protect Resident With PTSD From Shared Bathroom Arrangement With Male Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide the necessary care to maintain the psychosocial well-being of one resident with diagnoses including depression, anxiety disorder, and PTSD when she was placed in a room arrangement that required her to share a bathroom with male residents. The resident had a BIMS score of 15 and was cognitively intact. On 5/19/2026, she called the police after a naked person entered her room, and the police requested that the resident who entered her room be moved to another room to prevent further incidents. During interview, the resident stated that around 4:00 a.m. on 5/19/2026 she woke up and found a naked man standing in front of her bathroom door and facing her at the end of her bed. She stated she was terrified, unable to move, thought she would be killed, and cried during the interview while describing that she had been abducted by two men and sexually assaulted in the past. She stated she did not feel safe at the facility after the incident. Staff interviews confirmed the bathroom was shared with male residents, that the resident was not supposed to share the bathroom with male residents, and that the resident's PTSD and history of domestic violence were known to social services. The facility policy stated that resident needs and preferences shall be accommodated, including adaptations to the bedroom and bathroom.
Resident Moved to Room Before Bathroom Was Ready
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure the resident received care that allowed him/her to achieve the highest practicable well-being when the resident was moved into a remodeled room before the bathroom was fully ready for use. The resident had a history of stroke with left-sided flaccidity, hemiplegia, hemiparesis, diabetes, high blood pressure, a prior fall with fractured pelvis and brain bleed, and required substantial to maximum assistance with dressing, hygiene, transfers, and toileting. The care plan directed staff to follow OT/PT/ST recommendations, use a sling on the left arm before transfers, and provide one or two staff assistance for transfers and toileting, with the resident preferring the bedside commode or bedpan. After the room move, the resident could not use the bathroom in his/her room because a grab bar had not been installed and staff were taking the resident to the larger bathrooms on the 100 or 200 halls to toilet. The resident reported that this was especially difficult when having diarrhea, that he/she had waited for staff and had an accident, and that it was embarrassing not to be able to clean up after toileting. Observation showed a bedpan in a plastic bag on the floor in the room bathroom, tools in the bathroom, and no bedside commode in the bathroom. The resident stated no one had told him/her when the bathroom would be fixed. Interviews showed staff were not aware the bathroom was not ready when the resident was moved. The DON said the room was normally made completely ready before a resident moved in and was not aware the grab bar had not been installed. The Maintenance Director gave conflicting information about when the grab bar was requested and said it had not yet been installed. Multiple staff members stated they were taking the resident to the larger bathrooms because the resident’s room bathroom lacked a grab bar or was not usable, and several were unaware of the issue until that week. The DON and Administrator stated they were not aware the room was not ready and said they would not have moved the resident if they had known.
Delayed Provision of Bed Side Rails
Penalty
Summary
The facility did not ensure that R25 received the necessary care and services to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial wellbeing when requested side rails for bed mobility were not provided in a timely manner. R25 was admitted with diagnoses including Parkinson's disease, restless leg syndrome, rheumatoid arthritis, and chronic pain, and his BIMS score of 15 indicated he was cognitively intact. During interview, R25 stated he had asked for side rails to help him get into bed, reposition himself, and move around in bed, and he reported he could not get into bed without them. Survey observation confirmed that his bed did not have side rails at that time. Record review showed the PT discharge summary documented that R25 reported he would lay in bed if he had bed rails to assist him with rolling and scooting. Therapy staff stated they had requested side rails from maintenance on 4/27/26 so R25 could have increased independence with bed mobility and had also discussed the need with nursing. However, maintenance staff reported they were unaware of the request, and environmental services stated she was only notified on 5/6/26 and then transferred a bed with side rails into R25's room. Nursing leadership acknowledged that once a request is made, side rails are usually installed the same day and stated R25's side rails should have been addressed sooner.
Failure to Properly Position Resident Upright During Assisted Feeding
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a deficiency in resident positioning during mealtime for a resident with Alzheimer's disease and severely impaired cognition, as evidenced by a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 2. The resident’s MDS indicated a need for partial to moderate assistance with eating, and the care plan documented nutrition and hydration risk related to end-stage diagnosis, cognitive limitations, and weakness, with directions for a general diet, thin liquids, and assistance with eating. During a breakfast observation on the Magnolia Unit, the resident was seated in a Broda chair that was reclined back. A dietary aide placed food on the table in front of the resident, and a CNA then placed beverages and food on an overbed table before walking away, while the resident remained reclined with eyes closed and the plate of food untouched. Later in the same observation period, another CNA offered the resident chocolate milk while the Broda chair remained tilted backward, and the resident had to struggle to move her head up and forward to reach the cup. The same CNA then offered hot cereal, which the resident declined by saying “later.” A different CNA subsequently offered another drink of chocolate milk, again without adjusting the reclined position of the Broda chair. Policy review showed the facility’s “Feeding of Residents by Staff” policy required that residents unable to feed themselves be assisted per their care plan and be positioned comfortably in an upright position. In an interview, the DON stated there was no specific positioning policy, that staff received positioning education in training, and that her expectation was that residents be placed in an upright position whenever food or drink was offered.
Failure to Respond Timely to Resident Call Light for Toileting Assistance
Penalty
Summary
Facility staff failed to respond to a cognitively intact resident’s call light within a reasonable time, resulting in a documented delay of over two hours. The resident, who had been admitted earlier in the month, reported that during breakfast he activated his call light to request assistance with toileting and waited approximately 1.5 to 2 hours before staff responded. Facility records from the call light system on the same date showed the call light was activated at 6:22 AM and not answered until 2 hours and 23 minutes later. During interviews, a CNA stated that management had communicated an expectation that call lights be answered in about 15 minutes, and the Administrator stated that staff had been told they should ideally answer call lights within 20 minutes of activation. The facility’s failure to respond to the resident’s call light in a timely manner was cited under WAC 388-97-1060(1) for not honoring resident preferences, choices, values, and beliefs, and placed residents at risk of unmet care needs and diminished quality of life.
Failure to Follow Physician Orders for Timely Post-Operative Staple Removal
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice by not carrying out a physician’s transfer order for a cognitively intact resident admitted with multiple diagnoses including a right hip fracture. The 5‑day MDS dated 02/20/2026 showed the resident was cognitively intact, and transfer orders dated 02/13/2026 directed staff to schedule a follow‑up appointment with the orthopedic provider for staple removal in two weeks. Interview and record review revealed that the resident reported not having been seen by the orthopedic surgeon since admission and stated that the staples had remained in for a long time before being removed, which was painful. The electronic health record showed the staples were not removed until 04/08/2026, 51 days after admission, and the DON/RN acknowledged that the transfer orders were not carried out due to an oversight, despite the expectation that admission/transfer orders be completed as instructed. This failure was cited under WAC 388-97-1060 (1)-(3) for not honoring each resident’s preferences, choices, values, and beliefs and for not providing care in accordance with professional standards of practice for one of three sampled residents reviewed for quality of life.
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.