Therapeutic Diet Order Not Followed for Resident with Diabetes
Summary
Resident #2, a male with diagnoses including type 2 diabetes mellitus with hyperglycemia, was assessed as having a BIMS score of 12 out of 15 and an active diagnosis of diabetes mellitus. His care plan identified him as at risk for altered nutrition related to DMII and included an intervention to serve the diet as ordered by the physician with large portions at meals. The dietitian’s recommendation, signed by the RDN and Dr. Q, directed a CCD/regular/regular diet with large protein portions at all meals, but the resident’s order summary instead reflected a CCD, regular texture, thin diet with large portions at all meals. During observation, Resident #2 received extra tater tots and an additional half hamburger for dinner, and the meal tray ticket reflected large portions at all meals. In interview, the RDN stated the resident needed large protein portions because his calorie needs were higher than a normal diet could provide and confirmed the current diet order was incorrect because it listed large portions instead of large protein portions. The DON stated the doctor’s orders included large portions at every meal, but the RDN recommendation had been for large protein portions and had been approved by the doctor.
Penalty
Resources
Below are regulatory guidelines relevant to this citation:
A resident with Parkinson’s disease, dysphagia, cognitive impairment, and weight loss had a physician order for a health shake with meals as part of a therapeutic diet. During meal service, the shake was not on the tray and no substitute was offered; staff said the dietary aide forgot it and the LVN missed it when checking trays, while the resident reported he sometimes receives the shake and sometimes does not.
Two residents with complex medical conditions, including diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and dependence on renal dialysis, did not receive their physician-ordered therapeutic diets. One resident ordered for a consistent carbohydrate diet was incorrectly listed and served under a renal diet. Another resident ordered for a liberalized low protein renal diet with mechanical soft texture was served ham instead of the specified ground pork cutlet, contrary to the facility’s renal diet policy that prohibits cured meats. Dietary staff relied on incorrect tickets and substitutions, and the RD reported not conducting tray-line audits or being aware that prescribed diets were not being followed.
Surveyors found that multiple residents with dysphagia, cognitive impairment, and nutritional risk were not receiving physician-ordered fortified and mechanically altered diets. Despite documented orders and tray tickets specifying fortified puddings, super puddings, fortified meal plans, and mighty shakes, residents were observed at meals receiving standard items such as potatoes, fish, hush puppies, and sandwiches without the prescribed fortified components. Meals for these residents appeared identical to regular meals, and staff interviews confirmed that fortified preparations were not consistently provided as ordered.
A resident with DM and end-stage renal disease, whose physician-ordered diet specified a renal CCHO diet with soft and bite-sized texture, regular/thin liquids, and no salt, was served double portions of meat and rice without a corresponding physician order. The dietary staff provided these double portions based on the resident’s request, and the meal ticket reflected double portions contrary to the order. An LPN reported the resident’s blood glucose readings were elevated, and the facility’s own policy required diets to be served exactly as ordered by the physician.
Failure to provide ordered double protein portion: A resident with severe protein-calorie malnutrition and a physician order for double protein received only a single pork chop at lunch, despite the meal ticket reflecting the correct order. Staff, including an LVN, dietary staff, the DON, and the Administrator, acknowledged the tray did not match the ticket and that the resident should have received two servings.
Therapeutic diets were not followed for a resident with hypokalemia who was ordered a regular/liberalized pureed diet. During lunch observation, the resident’s meal ticket indicated a pureed diet, but the resident was served whole Mandarin oranges instead of a pureed dessert, and a CNA confirmed the oranges were not pureed.
Therapeutic Diet Supplement Not Provided as Ordered
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a therapeutic diet order was carried out for one resident who had Parkinson’s disease, dysphagia, moderate cognitive impairment, dependence for all eating, and documented weight loss. The resident’s record showed a physician order for a health shake with meals as part of a therapeutic diet plan for nutritional support, along with a mechanically altered diet and nectar consistency. The care plan addressed actual weight loss related to diet change and decreased oral intake, with an intervention for diet as ordered. During meal service observation, the resident did not receive the ordered health shake with the lunch tray, and no substitute supplement was offered or provided at that time even though the meal ticket listed the shake. The resident stated he had not received the shake and said he sometimes gets it and sometimes does not. Staff interviews showed the CNA was unaware the shake had not been delivered, the dietary aide said she forgot to put it on the tray, the LVN stated she must have missed it when checking the tray, and the dietary manager said the order was supposed to be followed from the meal tickets. The DON and Administrator both stated the resident was expected to receive the health shake with meals.
Failure to Accurately Implement Physician-Ordered Therapeutic Diets
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure that physician-ordered therapeutic diets were accurately implemented for two residents. One resident with bacteremia, osteomyelitis, and type I diabetes mellitus had a care plan intervention to provide the ordered diet and a physician order for a consistent carbohydrate diet with regular texture and thin liquids. However, during a lunch tray-line observation, this resident’s diet ticket incorrectly listed a renal diet. Dietary staff questioned whether the resident should receive ham and collard greens, and the tray was prepared and placed on the cart based on an incorrect renal diet listing. The dietary manager later confirmed that the diet ticket was wrong and that the resident should have been receiving a consistent carbohydrate diet instead of a renal diet. Another resident with chronic kidney disease, dysphagia, polyosteoarthritis, and dependence on renal dialysis had a care plan intervention to provide the ordered diet and physician orders for a liberalized low protein renal diet with low concentrated sweets, mechanical soft texture, and regular thin liquids. During a lunch tray-line observation, this resident’s ticket correctly listed a renal diet with mechanical soft texture, but the resident was served ham after dietary staff confirmed its use, despite the facility’s renal diet spreadsheet indicating that the meal should have included a ground pork cutlet. No ground pork cutlets or ground chicken were prepared. The registered dietitian reported that she did not perform tray-line audits and was unaware that prescribed diets were not being followed. Review of the facility’s Liberalized Low Protein Renal Diet policy showed that cured and canned meats such as ham were prohibited, which conflicted with what was actually served.
Failure to Provide Physician-Ordered Fortified and Therapeutic Diets
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a deficiency in the facility’s failure to provide therapeutic and fortified diets as ordered by physicians for four residents with dysphagia, cognitive impairment, and nutritional risk. Physician orders and meal tickets documented requirements for mechanically altered diets and fortified items such as fortified puddings, super puddings, fortified meal plans, and mighty shakes. However, during meal observations, these ordered fortified components were not provided, and the meals served appeared the same as regular meals without the prescribed enhancements. For one male resident with depression, dysphagia, GERD, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, and dysphagia following cerebral infarction, the MDS showed severe cognitive impairment and pain with swallowing, and he was coded as being on a mechanically altered diet. Physician orders included a regular mechanical soft diet with ground texture and fortified pudding twice daily for malnutrition. His meal ticket reflected a regular diet, mechanical soft diet, and fortified pudding cream. During a lunch observation, he was seen self-feeding potatoes, fish, and hush puppies, with no fortified pudding present, and his meal looked identical to those of residents receiving regular meals. A female resident with Alzheimer’s disease, depression, dysphagia, GERD, hyperlipidemia, and abnormal weight loss had an MDS indicating severe cognitive impairment, pain with swallowing, and a mechanically altered diet. Her physician orders included mighty shake 4 oz twice daily at lunch and dinner and fortified pudding 4 oz twice daily at lunch and dinner, and her meal ticket listed a regular diet, mechanical soft diet, fortified pudding/ice cream, fortified enhanced food, and mighty shake. At a lunch observation, she was self-feeding potatoes, fish, and hush puppies, with no mighty shake, ice cream, or fortified pudding on her tray, and her meal appeared the same as regular meals. Another female resident with anemia, hypertension, renal insufficiency, Alzheimer’s disease, anxiety disorder, depression, dysphagia, and vitamin D deficiency had an MDS showing severe cognitive impairment, pain with swallowing, and a mechanically altered diet. Her physician orders included mighty shake 4 oz twice daily at lunch and dinner and fortified pudding 4 oz twice daily at lunch and dinner, and her meal ticket listed a regular diet, mechanical soft diet, fortified pudding/ice cream, and mighty shake. During a lunch observation, she was self-feeding a cheese sandwich with juice, milk, and water, with no mighty shake, ice cream, or fortified pudding on the tray. A fourth female resident with depression, dysphagia, GERD, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, and diabetes had an MDS indicating severe cognitive impairment and a mechanically altered diet. Her physician orders included a fortified meal plan diet with mechanical soft texture and thin consistency, and super pudding 4 oz twice daily at lunch and dinner. Her meal ticket listed a regular diet, mechanical soft diet, fortified pudding/ice cream, fortified enhanced food, and mighty shake. At a lunch observation, she was self-feeding potatoes, fish, and hush puppies, with no fortified meal plan or fortified pudding present, and her meal looked the same as those of residents receiving regular meals. In interviews, the Dietary Manager stated she usually prepared fortified pudding and sometimes added extra butter and sour cream to potatoes for fortified meals but had not done so that day, and an LVN acknowledged that residents with fortified meal orders were receiving meals that looked like regular meals and that diets were ordered for specific health and safety reasons.
Failure to Follow Physician-Ordered Therapeutic Diet for Diabetic Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide a therapeutic diet as ordered by the physician for a resident with diabetes mellitus and end-stage renal disease. The resident’s care plan and physician’s order specified a renal diet with consistent carbohydrate (CCHO), soft and bite-sized texture, regular/thin liquids, and no salt placed on the tray, with no order for double portions. Despite this, observations on the lunch meal service showed the resident received double portions of meatloaf and rice, along with a single portion of green beans and apple juice. The meal ticket for that lunch also reflected double portions, which did not match the physician’s order. During interviews, the Dietary Supervisor acknowledged that the resident did not have an order for double portions and stated that double portions were provided because the resident requested them. The Dietary Supervisor also stated that giving double portions of rice could lead to high blood sugars. A review of blood sugar monitoring for the resident showed readings ranging from 177 mg/dL to 343 mg/dL before dinner during the month, and an LVN reported that normal blood sugar ranges were 70 to 99 mg/dL and that he was unaware the resident was receiving double portions. The facility’s policy on therapeutic diets required that diets be provided consistent with physician orders and served as ordered, but the resident’s diet was not served according to those orders.
Failure to Provide Ordered Double Protein Portion
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure food was prepared in a form designed to meet individual needs and as prescribed by the physician for 1 of 24 residents reviewed for therapeutic diets. Resident #18, a [AGE]-year-old female admitted with diagnoses including vitamin D deficiency and unspecified severe protein-calorie malnutrition, had a BIMS score of 15 and was documented as cognitively intact. Her care plan identified a nutritional problem and risk for malnutrition related to malnutrition, vitamin deficiency, and cachexia, and included an intervention to provide and serve the diet as ordered. Her physician order summary reflected an active order for double protein with a start date of 06/22/25. During lunch meal observation on 04/01/26, Resident #18 received a single serving of the entree, a pork chop, even though the meal ticket reflected double protein portion. After review of the ticket with CNA C and the Executive Director, both agreed she did not receive two servings of pork chops. LVN P stated she was responsible for ensuring the resident received double protein with lunch, but was unaware she needed two servings of the entree and said she should have read the complete ticket. The Dietary Manager stated the dietary staff member was responsible for ensuring the resident received two pork chops, and the DON stated the nurse should check trays prior to serving residents. The Administrator stated the cooks were the first line of defense and the nurses were the second line of defense for ensuring residents received the correct dietary orders.
Therapeutic Diet Not Followed for a Resident
Penalty
Summary
Therapeutic diets were not provided as prescribed for R #12. R #12 was admitted with a diagnosis of hypokalemia and the MDS indicated a regular/liberalized pureed diet. During lunch observation on 3/26/26 at 11:42 a.m., R #12's lunch ticket showed a pureed diet, but the resident was served whole Mandarin oranges instead of a pureed dessert. CNA #2 confirmed that the Mandarin oranges were whole and not pureed.
Trusted data from CMS and state health departments
Every citation, penalty and Plan of Correction is sourced from public CMS records (latest release June 24, 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.