Failure to Notify Physician and Implement Timely Interventions for Significant Weight Loss
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure timely recognition and response to significant weight loss for two residents, including lack of physician notification and delayed nutritional interventions. One resident with diagnoses of dysphagia, oropharyngeal phase, and Type 2 DM had a documented weight of 151.9 pounds in early December and 140.9 pounds in early January, representing a 7.2% weight loss in 27 days. Despite this significant weight loss, there was no documented evidence that the physician was notified at the time the loss was identified, and no intervention was documented until early March, when the resident’s Boost Breeze supplement was increased from twice daily to three times daily. For the second resident, who also had dysphagia, oropharyngeal phase, the facility used a hospital weight of 88 pounds at readmission and did not obtain an actual weight on the day of readmission. The first in‑facility weight, taken three days later, was 79.5 pounds, reflecting a 9.7% loss from the hospital weight in three days. There was no documented evidence that the physician was notified of this significant weight loss when it was identified. The RD’s nutritional monitoring note several days later documented the weight decline, underweight BMI, variable oral intake, pureed diet with thin liquids, and ordered supplements (Boost BID and Magic Cup daily) to support caloric intake, and identified the resident as at high nutritional risk with a diagnosis of severe malnutrition. Record review of the second resident’s MAR showed that the ordered supplements were not consistently provided. The Magic Cup was not administered on multiple mornings due to “drug/item unavailable,” and Boost 8 oz BID was also not administered on several dates for the same reason. The RD later confirmed that the supplements were discontinued due to the resident’s refusal. The RD also confirmed that for both residents, the physicians were not notified of the significant weight losses and that interventions were not put in place at the time the weight losses were identified. The facility therefore did not ensure timely physician notification and implementation of interventions in response to significant weight loss for these residents.
Plan Of Correction
F 06921. On 4/30/26 the MD was made aware of significant weight losses for R 27 and R 83. Dietitian reviewed R 27 and R83, all interventions reviewed and approved by MD. 2. All resident who have experienced significant weight loss have the potential to be affected, the Dietitian/designee completed a 30 day look back to ensure that all identified significant weight losses had and intervention in place and both weight loss and intervention had been notified to the MD and were reflected in the EHR. Where applicable the notification was completed. 3. To prevent the potential for reoccurrence, the NHA/designee re-educated the IDT team on the facility weight process with an emphasis on timely provider notification of significant weight loss and implementation of interventions. 4. To monitor and maintain ongoing compliance, the DON/designee will audit residents' weights x 4 weeks, then monthly x2 to ensure any significant weight loss is communicated in a timely manner to the MD with an intervention and documented in the HER. The results of the audit will be forwarded to the facility QAPI committee monthly for further review and recommendations as needed.
Penalty
Resources
Below are regulatory guidelines relevant to this citation:
The facility failed to consistently document meal intake for two residents who had significant weight loss or were at nutritional/dehydration risk, despite care plans and physician orders identifying the need for monitoring. One resident with dementia, diabetes, and a history of significant weight loss had only about one‑third of meals documented over a month, with many days lacking any recorded intake, even though she was ordered a regular diet and supplements and was identified as at risk for malnutrition. Another resident with ESRD, respiratory failure, CHF, and on dialysis had multiple missing meal percentage entries across two months, including entire days without any documented intake, despite being care planned for nutritional risk. Staff interviews confirmed that meal intakes were expected to be documented in the EMR and that trays for residents away at appointments should be saved and offered later, but the Administrator and DON acknowledged that required intake documentation was missing.
A resident with dementia, severe cognitive impairment, and depression experienced unplanned weight loss after the RD documented a slow weight-loss trend and recommended house supplement shakes TID with added calories to meals. The facility entered and carried out the supplement order only once daily, and staff confirmed the resident received a shake only on second shift. Weight documentation showed a large, unverified increase followed by a re-weigh that demonstrated a 3.16% loss over a short period, and nursing staff did not promptly recognize or recheck the significant weight discrepancy. The RD was not informed that her TID recommendation had been effectively reduced to once daily, and the facility’s own weight-loss prevention processes were not followed.
The facility did not follow its own weight-monitoring policy or MD orders for several residents with conditions such as COPD, HF, diabetes, and kidney disease. Although orders and care plans required weekly weights for four weeks and then monthly, weights were missing for extended periods, including after admission and readmission, with no refusals documented. In two cases, weights were only obtained at surveyor request, revealing significant weight changes over weeks to months without interim monitoring. The NHA acknowledged that ordered weight monitoring was not properly completed for multiple residents.
Two residents experienced unmet nutritional needs when the facility failed to follow diet orders, monitor weight loss, and provide required meals. A resident with DM and a documented vegetarian diet order received regular diet meal tickets listing meat-based options, had poor intake of facility meals, and experienced a 16.3% weight loss in 19 days without timely documentation, provider notification, or initiation of nutritional interventions, despite policies requiring monitoring of impaired nutrition and unplanned weight loss. Another resident with ESRD on a therapeutic renal dialysis diet left very early for thrice-weekly dialysis and was not provided breakfast or alternative food to take, with EMR entries showing breakfast as not available or not applicable on dialysis days and staff confirming no meals or snacks were prepared, contrary to facility policies requiring at least three meals daily and coordination of nutritional management for dialysis care.
A resident with diabetes, hypertension, and dementia had an original diet order for mechanical soft with low concentrated sweets (LCS), which was later changed by physician order and RD recommendation to a regular diet. Although the EMR and dietary tray card system reflected the regular diet, the nutrition care plan continued to direct staff to provide an LCS, mechanical soft diet and was not updated to match the current order. The clinical record also lacked documented rationale from the physician or RD for discontinuing the LCS therapeutic restriction. Facility leadership and clinical staff confirmed that the individualized care plan and documentation did not reflect the resident’s current nutritional needs and discontinued interventions.
A resident with diabetes, dysphagia, and orders for a pureed diet with nectar‑thick liquids and a CCHO plan had a jar of peanut butter and jelly at the bedside and reported eating it directly from the jar because he disliked facility food. Nursing staff and a CNA knew the resident sometimes ate peanut butter and jelly and was non‑compliant with his diet but did not recognize or act on the conflict with his ordered pureed/nectar‑thick, CCHO diet or his aspiration precautions. The CDM and ST were unaware the resident was consuming peanut butter and jelly and had not evaluated its safety or appropriateness, while the resident’s significant other stated she had been bringing it for months after being told she could bring any food. The facility’s policy requiring interdisciplinary review and documentation when resident food preferences conflict with prescribed diets was not followed, resulting in ongoing access to food inconsistent with the physician’s orders.
Failure to Consistently Document Meal Intake for Residents at Nutritional Risk
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to consistently document meal consumption for residents with significant weight loss or identified nutritional risk, preventing adequate monitoring of their nutritional status. One resident with dementia, diabetes, depression, anxiety, and vitamin deficiencies was admitted at 154.4 pounds and had a documented downward weight trend to 140 pounds after three months and then to 130 pounds. Her care plan identified her as at risk for nutrition with a history of significant weight loss at one, three, and six months, with goals to avoid unplanned significant weight changes and interventions including a regular diet, offering substitutes, providing ordered supplements, and documenting consumption. Physician orders noted she was at risk for malnutrition and prescribed a regular diet and house supplements twice daily. However, review of her meal intake records over a 30‑day period showed that only 29 of 90 meals had documented intake, with no documentation at all for any of the three meals on 16 separate days and incomplete documentation on several other days. Staff interviews further confirmed the lack of consistent documentation for this resident. A CNA reported that the resident ate breakfast in the dining room and usually had lunch and supper with family in her room or while out on drives, and that her appetite varied by day. The CNA stated that if the resident ate less than 50% of a meal, staff would offer alternatives, but she was not aware of the resident receiving supplements or having weight loss, and there were no supplements available for the resident in the container at the nurses’ station that day. An LPN verified that the resident’s meal percentages were not being consistently recorded in the EMR, acknowledging that only about one‑third of the resident’s meals were documented and that this information was important for the dietitian when determining nutritional interventions related to weight loss. A second resident, admitted with end stage renal disease, respiratory failure, hyperlipidemia, and congestive heart failure, had impaired cognition and required set‑up/clean‑up assistance with meals and was care planned as being at nutritional and/or dehydration risk due to recent surgery, CHF, dialysis, increased needs, and skin alteration. Interventions included assisting with meals and providing the ordered diet. This resident had multiple missing meal intake entries over March and April, including entire days with no documented breakfast, lunch, or dinner, and numerous individual meals without recorded percentages. Interviews with dietary and CNA staff indicated that trays for residents away at dialysis should be returned to the kitchen, stored in the fridge, or placed in the server room until the resident returned, and that meal intakes should be documented in the computer. The Administrator and DON confirmed the missing meal percentage documentation, and facility policy required accurate records of residents’ food intake to be completed by assigned personnel.
Plan Of Correction
1. On 5/6/26 the Director of Nursing reviewed Resident # 5 and determined there was no ill effect related to the missing meal documentation and the resident's weight remains stable. On 5/6/26 the Director of Nursing reviewed Resident # 12 and determined there was no ill effect related to the missing meal documentation and the resident's weight remains stable. 2. Like Residents are identified as residents who receive meals from the facility. Utilizing the Meal Intake Audit Tool which was created on 4/20/26 by the Director of Nursing for the purpose of this POC, an audit of identified residents will be completed by the Director of Nursing or designee to ensure they have diet orders in PCC and meal intake is being documented in PCC. This audit along with identified corrections will be completed on or before 5/13/26. 3. The Director of Nursing designee will re-educate licensed nurses and STNA's on the Food Acceptance Policy to include documenting meal intake in POC. This education will be completed on or before 5/13/26. 4. Utilizing the Meal Intake Audit Tool which was created on 4/20/26 by the Director of Nursing for the purpose of this POC, the Director of Nursing or designee will complete an audit 4-6 residents weekly for four weeks, beginning 5/14/26 to ensure they have diet orders in PCC and meal intake is being documented in PCC. Noncompliance noted during audits will be corrected to ensure diet orders are in PCC and meal intake is being documented in PCC. Negative findings to be addressed immediately and negative trends or system wide issues will be reported to the QAPI committee, and the action plan will be adjusted as needed.
Failure to Implement Dietitian’s TID Supplement Order and Validate Significant Weight Changes
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure adequate nutritional maintenance for Resident 27 by not implementing the registered dietitian’s recommendation for house supplement shakes three times daily and by not appropriately monitoring and validating significant weight changes. Resident 27 had dementia with severe cognitive impairment, chronic pain, unspecified intellectual disabilities, and major depressive disorder, used a wheelchair, and required set-up or clean-up assistance for eating. The MDS documented a weight of 123 lbs with no weight loss or gain at that time, and the care plan included nutrition-focused interventions such as providing diet as ordered, snacks between meals, monitoring for loss of appetite while on Remeron, and providing supplements as ordered. On 03/03/26, the dietitian documented that the resident had slow, unplanned weight loss related to a decline in energy and recommended offering a house supplement three times a day and adding extra sugar, cream, and butter to foods and fluids to increase energy intake and promote weight stability. Despite this recommendation, the electronic task list from 03/16/26 to 04/13/26 showed the resident was only offered and received a supplement drink once daily in the afternoon. Staff interviews confirmed that the resident received a supplement only on second shift around 2:00 PM, and an administrative nurse acknowledged she had missed the dietitian’s TID recommendation and entered the order for only once daily. Weight records showed a documented weight of 123.4 lbs on 04/01/26 and an implausible weight of 168.0 lbs on 04/10/26, which was not recognized or rechecked at the time by nursing staff. A subsequent re-weigh on 04/15/26, using the wheelchair tare method, yielded a resident weight of 119.5 lbs, reflecting a 3.9 lb (3.16%) loss from 04/01/26. Administrative staff later stated that the 168 lb weight should have been immediately reported and rechecked, and that whoever weighed the resident should have reviewed the previous weight and performed a re-weight if there was a significant change. The facility’s weight loss prevention policy required nutritional interventions and RD consultation for residents with poor or declining intake or weight loss, but the RD was not informed that her TID supplement recommendation had been effectively reduced to once daily.
Failure to Monitor and Document Ordered Weights for Multiple Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to monitor and document resident weights according to physician orders and its own "Weight Protocol" policy, which required weights within 24 hours of admission, weekly for four weeks, and then monthly. One resident admitted in early February with COPD and a communication deficit had a care plan to monitor weights per facility policy and a physician order for weekly weights for four weeks then monthly; however, there was no recorded weight from 2/11 through discharge to the hospital on 2/14, and after readmission and a new order for weekly weights, no weights were documented after 3/3 for March and April, with no refusals noted. Another resident admitted in late March with heart failure and diabetes had a care plan to monitor weights per policy and a physician order for weekly weights for four weeks then monthly, but there were no documented weights after the admission date. A third resident admitted in early February with heart failure and diabetes had a care plan and physician order for weekly then monthly weights, yet only two weights were recorded in early March, and a subsequent weight obtained at surveyor request in April showed a 51‑pound change over 36 days, with no intervening weights documented. A fourth resident admitted in mid‑January with heart failure and kidney disease had a care plan and physician order for weekly then monthly weights, but no weights were recorded after 2/1 for February through April, until a weight was obtained at surveyor request in April showing an approximate 15‑pound change over two months. The Nursing Home Administrator confirmed that the facility failed to properly monitor weights as ordered for four of six reviewed residents.
Plan Of Correction
Residents R15 has discharged from the facility, Residents R18, R29 and R33 will have their weights reviewed by the Dietitian for any changes related to weight increase or decline. Any changes will be reported to the Physician/NP for further orders or plan of care changes. Resident weights will be completed on admission, weekly times 4 and then monthly until a physician order changes this policy. Weights will be reviewed by the Dietitian and DON/Designee. The Dietitian will review for any changes related to weight increase or decline. Any changes will be reported to the Physician/NP for further orders or plan of care changes. Education will be provided by the DON/designee to the nursing staff that resident weight needed to be completed upon admission, then weekly times four and monthly by the 7 th of the month per the weight policy. DON/Designee will complete audits for weights recorded at 90% of resident admissions, weekly weights, and monthly weights and ensure the Dietitian has reviewed the weights for any changes related to weight increase or decline. Any changes will be reported to the Physician/NP for further orders or plan of care adjustments. Results of these audits will be reviewed at the QAPI committee meeting for further recommendations
Failure to Provide Ordered Vegetarian Diet, Address Significant Weight Loss, and Serve Breakfast on Dialysis Days
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to meet residents’ nutritional needs by not honoring a prescribed vegetarian diet and not responding to significant weight loss for one resident, and by not providing breakfast meals on dialysis days for another resident. One resident with diabetes mellitus was admitted for IV antibiotic therapy after a recent UTI and was identified as at risk for dehydration and nutritional issues. Her baseline care plan and physician orders documented a vegetarian diet, regular texture, and thin liquids, and the care plan instructed staff to monitor and record meal intakes, obtain RD evaluation as needed, and complete weekly weights. Despite this, her MDS showed she did not receive a therapeutic diet, and her meal tickets were printed as a regular diet with meat-based options such as chicken, cheeseburger, hot dog, and sloppy joe, and no vegetarian menu was available. Dietary staff acknowledged they did not have a vegetarian meal ticket for her and had not yet ordered soy burgers, and staff reported difficulty providing her vegetarian diet due to lack of appropriate choices. The same resident’s intake of facility-provided meals was documented as poor, less than 50% of meals, and she was described as very particular about what she ate, with her husband frequently bringing in outside food of unknown amounts. Weights documented in the EMR showed 156.2 lbs on admission and again on a later date, followed by a drop to 132.8 lbs and then a calculated weight of 128.4 lbs when the wheelchair weight was subtracted, representing a significant weight loss of 16.3% in 19 days. The EMR lacked a progress note addressing the weight loss on the date it was first recorded, and nursing documentation showed that when the provider was in the facility shortly after the low weight was obtained, staff updated the provider about low blood pressure but not about the weight loss. The provider was not documented as being notified of the weight loss until several days later, and there was no evidence of re-weighing, appetite stimulant orders, or nutritional supplements being initiated despite existing orders allowing the RD or interdisciplinary team to start supplements. Administrative and dietary staff later reported they were unaware of the weight loss at the time and had not reviewed the resident’s weights. The deficiency also includes failure to provide breakfast meals to another resident with ESRD and moderate protein-calorie malnutrition who received dialysis three times per week. This resident had a therapeutic renal dialysis diet ordered and required set-up assistance for eating, with documentation that his meal intakes were generally good and adequate to meet estimated needs. His EMR showed multiple breakfast meal entries on dialysis days marked as “not available” or “not applicable,” and staff interviews revealed that he left very early for dialysis and was not provided breakfast or a snack to take with him. The resident reported he did not eat breakfast before dialysis because none was provided, and he did not receive a snack at the dialysis center. CNAs and an LN confirmed that no actual breakfast meal was prepared for him on dialysis mornings, the kitchen was closed at the time he woke up, and no alternative food or drinks were offered to take with him. The facility’s own policies on dialysis care and frequency of meals required communication about nutritional management and provision of at least three meals daily at regular times or according to resident needs and care plan, but these were not followed for this resident on dialysis days. The facility’s Nutrition (Impaired)/Unplanned Weight Loss clinical protocol required monitoring and documenting weight and dietary intake in a way that allowed ready comparison over time, defining current nutritional status through interdisciplinary assessment, and using supplementation strategies such as food fortification and increased portions for residents with impaired nutrition or risk factors. For the resident with significant weight loss and a vegetarian diet order, the record and interviews showed that although poor intake and vegetarian preference were known, the facility did not adjust menus to provide appropriate vegetarian options, did not consistently document or act on poor intake, and did not promptly assess or intervene when substantial weight loss occurred. For the resident on dialysis, the facility’s Dialysis, Care for a Resident policy required communication about nutritional and fluid management, and the Frequency of Meals policy required at least three meals or their equivalent daily, but staff acknowledged that no breakfast meal or equivalent was prepared or offered on dialysis mornings, and refusals were not documented in the EMR or care plan.
Failure to Update Care Plan and Document Rationale for Diet Change
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified that the facility failed to update an individualized care plan to reflect a resident’s current diet order and failed to address discontinued resident-specific nutritional interventions. Facility policies required that diet orders be provided as ordered by the healthcare provider, that the tray card system match the medical record, and that comprehensive care plans be updated on an ongoing basis to reflect resident needs, wishes, or changes in condition. The resident involved had diagnoses including diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and dementia. A Medical Nutritional Therapy assessment documented a diet order of mechanical soft with low concentrated sweets (LCS). A clinical progress note later recommended advancement to regular solids and thin liquids, and the physician order for LCS, mechanical soft was discontinued and replaced with a regular diet order. The facility’s EMR diet order report and the dietary tray card system both showed a regular diet for the resident. Despite these changes, the resident’s nutrition status care plan, last updated several days before the diet change, continued to list an intervention to provide an LCS, mechanical soft texture diet and was not revised to reflect the current regular diet order. The RN Assessment Coordinator confirmed that the care plan did not match the current diet order. A subsequent RD progress note also indicated the resident was on a regular diet, but the clinical record did not contain documentation from the RD or physician providing a rationale for discontinuing the LCS therapeutic diet restriction. The Regional Risk staff member confirmed the absence of this rationale in the record, and the Administrator and DON acknowledged that the facility failed to update the individualized care plan to address the resident’s specific nutritional concerns and preferences and failed to address the discontinued resident-specific interventions.
Failure to Control Off‑Diet Peanut Butter and Jelly for Resident on Pureed, Nectar‑Thick, CCHO Diet
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure that food available to a resident was consistent with the physician‑ordered pureed diet with mildly thick (nectar‑thick) liquids and a consistent carbohydrate (CCHO) plan. The resident had multiple diagnoses, including diabetes mellitus, anemia, atrial fibrillation, acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, and chronic kidney disease, and was on aspiration precautions with safe swallowing instructions posted at the bedside. Despite these orders and precautions, surveyors observed a jar of Smucker’s Goober Strawberry Peanut Butter & Jelly Stripes on the resident’s bedside table within reach. The resident reported that he did not like the pureed food served by the facility, acknowledged having difficulty swallowing, and stated that he had been eating peanut butter and jelly directly from the jar since the previous year without being told it could be unsafe. Nursing and CNA staff were aware that the resident was sometimes non‑compliant with the prescribed diet and had seen him eating peanut butter and jelly, but they did not recognize or act on the potential conflict with his ordered pureed/nectar‑thick, CCHO diet. The LN confirmed the resident’s diet order and aspiration precautions, acknowledged seeing him eat peanut butter and jelly, and admitted uncertainty about whether it was safe. The CNA stated that the resident did not like the pureed food, had observed him eating peanut butter and jelly as a snack, and knew he was sometimes non‑compliant with his diet, but was not aware of his swallowing precautions and did not know that peanut butter and jelly could be unsafe for him. Neither staff member reported the issue through the facility’s processes or sought further assessment of the resident’s swallowing in relation to this food. The dietary and therapy departments were also not informed of the resident’s ongoing consumption of peanut butter and jelly. The Certified Dietary Manager, upon review of the electronic health record, confirmed the resident’s CCHO diabetic dysphagia diet with pureed texture and nectar‑thick liquids and stated that peanut butter and jelly did not meet the physician‑ordered diet due to both texture and sugar content. The Speech Therapist reported that she had not evaluated the resident for some time, was unaware that he was eating peanut butter and jelly directly from the jar, and had never assessed his ability to safely swallow that food. The resident’s significant other stated that she had been bringing peanut butter and jelly for about three months, that staff had told her she could bring any food she wanted, and that she continued to bring it because the resident would not eat otherwise, despite being aware there could be safety concerns. The facility’s policy on resident food preferences required the dietitian and nursing staff, with physician involvement, to address conflicts between resident preferences and prescribed diets, but this process was not implemented in relation to the resident’s peanut butter and jelly consumption. Overall, the facility did not ensure that the resident’s available food was consistent with the ordered pureed, nectar‑thick, CCHO diet, did not communicate or coordinate among nursing, dietary, and therapy staff regarding the resident’s off‑diet food brought by family, and did not follow its own policy for managing resident food preferences that conflict with prescribed diets. This resulted in the resident having independent access to and consuming peanut butter and jelly that did not conform to his physician‑ordered diet and swallowing precautions.
Trusted data from CMS and state health departments
Every citation, penalty and Plan of Correction is sourced from public CMS records (latest release May 27, 2026) and official state health department websites — never guesswork.
Trusted by long-term care providers and associations.
Self-audit
Pick a level of detail and, optionally, what to focus on — then generate a survey-ready checklist distilled from the most recent citations.
Beta · AI-generated — for reference only, not professional advice. Verify against current CMS guidance before relying on it. Assisto accepts no responsibility for how this checklist is used.