Inadequate Nutritional Equivalence of Menu Substitutions
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure that menu substitutes offered to residents who declined the planned meal were of similar nutritive value to the original menu. The facility census documented 101 occupied residents, with 3 residents listed as NPO, meaning that 98 residents consumed food from the facility’s kitchen and were affected by the substitution practices. The facility’s “Always Available” substitution menu, presented to surveyors, listed only sandwich-type items—cheeseburger or hamburger, hot dog, deli meat sandwich, and peanut butter and jelly sandwich—with no vegetables or other balanced side dishes included. This substitution menu did not provide nutritionally comparable alternatives across food groups, despite facility policy stating that nutritionally comparable alternates for protein, grains, fruits, and vegetables would be planned during menu planning. A cognitively intact resident with multiple diagnoses including type 2 diabetes, hypertension, schizophrenia, atrial fibrillation, chronic right heart failure, and a left below-knee amputation reported that there were no meaningful substitutes beyond sandwiches and hot dogs and specifically noted being unable to obtain a salad. This resident stated that all the substitutes were sandwiches and hot dogs and expressed dissatisfaction with the food, describing it as cold and limited in variety. Another cognitively intact resident with diagnoses including heart failure, hypertensive heart disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, end-stage renal disease with dependence on dialysis, and obesity reported that the food was “terrible” and provided photographs of meals received. These photos showed meals such as a plate with half plain white rice and half mixed vegetables with no protein, and a roll with a small bowl of plain oatmeal without protein, as well as a serving of brown meat that appeared burnt over more than half of the portion and was not clearly identifiable by staff. This second resident stated that they frequently did not receive protein with meals and that, although substitutes were offered, they were not comparable to what was being served. The resident gave examples such as being offered a peanut butter and jelly sandwich instead of a pork chop, and receiving a peanut butter and jelly sandwich at breakfast instead of sausage, while noting that poultry-based alternatives like chicken or turkey sausage were not provided despite the resident not eating beef or pork. The Regional Director of Operations for Dietary stated that residents could choose items from the always-available menu and asserted that these were nutritionally equivalent to entrée portions, but also acknowledged that vegetables were not posted in advance and might not be automatically replaced unless requested. The Registered Dietician, when asked if the always-available menu met the same nutrient requirements as the planned menu, responded “yes and no,” and specifically identified that while a hamburger could provide protein, a hot dog was questionable and that vegetables were missing from the alternatives, suggesting that even a glass of tomato juice would be needed to meet equivalent nutritional value. These observations, interviews, and record reviews demonstrate that the facility did not consistently provide nutritionally comparable substitutes that met residents’ nutritional needs and preferences as required by its own policies and regulatory standards. Additionally, documentation showed that the facility had policies titled “Menu Alternates (per your request menu)” and “Dietary Preferences, Nutritional Requirements, and Portion Management,” which committed to providing nourishing, palatable, well-balanced meals that meet assessed nutritional needs and to making nutritionally comparable alternates available for resident preferences. The policies also required that resident preferences, substitutions, and special portion exceptions be documented in the resident’s record. While one resident’s concern referral form documented that the resident liked salads and vegetables and that the meal ticket was updated to reflect salads and double vegetables for lunch and dinner, the overall substitution system in place at the time of survey remained limited to primarily bread-based sandwich items without consistent inclusion of vegetables or balanced sides. The Registered Dietician’s acknowledgment that the existing always-available menu was missing vegetables further confirmed that the substitutes being offered were not nutritionally equivalent to the planned meals, resulting in the cited deficiency. The Administrator reported that a new always-available substitution menu existed but that the food items for it had not yet arrived, indicating that, at the time of the survey, residents were still being served from the older substitution menu consisting mainly of sandwiches and hot dogs. Record review of the new menu showed an expanded list including chef salad with meat, egg salad with crackers, and pasta meat salad with dressing, which would add more variety and food groups; however, these options were not yet in use during the survey period. Consequently, the deficiency centers on the facility’s actual practice during the survey timeframe, in which residents who declined the planned meal were offered substitutes that did not consistently provide similar nutritive value or balanced food groups, despite the facility’s written policies and staff statements about accommodating preferences and nutritional needs.
Penalty
Resources
Below are regulatory guidelines relevant to this citation:
Meal tickets and the menu did not match the food actually served. Surveyors observed that a resident with intact cognition and several other residents did not receive items listed on their tickets, including soup, salad, pineapple, English muffins, and pudding. The FSD said soup was not offered during summer months per company policy, and the Dietitian should have updated the tickets; Staff F acknowledged the mismatch, and the DON said the discrepancies had been an ongoing concern.
A resident with dysphagia and malnutrition received a mechanical soft lunch tray without gravy on the meat, and dietary staff could not identify or follow the correct menu and scoop sizes. The cook said she had not been told the proper scoop sizes, and the DM was unsure where the extended menus were. The next day, the DM served puree residents pinto beans and sausage using two 4-oz scoops instead of the 6-oz portion listed on the dietary spreadsheet. The RD, DON, and Administrator all stated the correct serving sizes and menu directions were expected to be followed.
Incorrect Modified Texture Diets Served: A resident with dysphagia and other residents on modified texture diets were served the wrong meal consistency after staff failed to read the full meal ticket. The resident received an unaltered piece of pizza, began choking in the dining room, and required the Heimlich maneuver and other emergency interventions. Staff later confirmed that residents ordered soft and bite sized, minced and moist, or other mechanically altered diets had been given incorrect foods.
Pureed Diet Menu Items Not Served: Seven residents ordered pureed diets were served lunch without the pureed wheat rolls listed on the approved menu. The cook verified the menu, pureed the broccoli and chicken, but forgot to puree the rolls, and all seven pureed trays were served without them. The CDM and Administrator confirmed the menu should be followed.
Dietary Staff Did Not Follow Ordered Therapeutic Diets and Resident Preferences: Two residents with severe cognitive impairment and swallowing-related diet needs were served meals that did not match their ordered diets or stated preferences. One resident ordered pureed meals with small portions and double protein but received divided portions that did not provide the ordered protein amount, while another resident who wanted meat ground into small pieces was served whole meat patties and ate little of the meal.
Menu portion sizes were not followed for chopped and puree diet items when staff used a 3 oz spoodle, a #8 dipper, and a #12 dipper instead of the #10 and #6 dippers listed on the preplanned menu. An employee and the Dietary Supervisor both confirmed the utensils used did not match the menu, and the Dietary Supervisor said the shortage of serving dippers/scoops contributed to the issue and that residents could potentially be affected by weight loss.
Meal tickets and menu items did not match served meals
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to follow the weekly menu by not providing soup daily as listed on the menu for 4 of 4 units, and it also failed to ensure that residents’ meal tickets matched the meals actually served. During surveyor observation and resident interviews, Resident ID #93, who had diagnoses including type 2 diabetes mellitus and heart failure and had a BIMS score of 15 of 15, stated that meal tickets did not always match what was served and that soup was not provided even though the slips indicated soup every day. During lunch service on 6/30/2026, surveyors observed that Resident ID #12 did not receive soup and was served Jello instead of chocolate pudding, Resident ID #45 did not receive a side salad, and Residents ID #12, 20, 56, and 76 did not receive pineapple listed on their meal tickets. During breakfast service on 7/1/2026, surveyors observed that Residents ID #12, 20, 56, and 76 did not receive English muffins listed on their meal tickets. The Food Service Director stated that the facility does not offer soup during the summer months per company policy and that the Dietitian should have updated the residents’ meal tickets for accuracy. Staff F acknowledged that the meal tickets and food served on the nursing units did not match, and the DON stated that residents are expected to receive the items listed on the menu and that discrepancies between menu listings and meal tickets had been an ongoing concern.
Incorrect meal portions and missing gravy on mechanical soft trays
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure meals served met residents’ nutritional needs during lunch service. For Resident #2, a male with morbid obesity, unspecified protein-calorie malnutrition, and a physician order for a regular diet with mechanical soft texture and thin liquids related to dysphagia, the lunch tray observed on 06/29/26 included stuffed bell peppers and okra, but the mechanical soft meat did not have gravy. During the observation, Dietary Manager C and [NAME] E both stated the mechanical soft bell pepper should have had gravy or some type of liquid consistency on it, and [NAME] E said she was not sure where the lunch menu was or what scoop size to use. During the same meal service, [NAME] E stated she had been the cook for about a month and had not been told by anyone, including the dietitian, about the scoop size to use. She said she used a large spoon for puree and a green scoop for regular and mechanical soft foods, but did not know the size of either utensil and served whatever scoop she had. Dietary Manager C also stated she was not sure where the extended menus were or what serving size should have been served for the regular, mechanical soft, or puree lunch. After calling a sister facility or the dietitian, she was told the mechanical soft serving size for stuffed bell pepper and okra should have been 4 ounces, while the regular diet should have received 1 stuffed bell pepper and 4 ounces of okra. When the surveyor and [NAME] E measured the mechanical soft bell pepper, it measured 3 ounces instead of the 4-ounce serving size. On 06/30/26, the Dietary Manager served two scoops of pinto beans and sausage using a 4-ounce scoop for two residents on a puree diet. Later, the Dietary Manager stated she was supposed to give 6 ounces and could not locate the dietary spreadsheet to verify the serving size. The Registered Dietitian stated the correct serving size should be used with all meals, that kitchen staff should use the spreadsheet when serving, and that the spreadsheet indicated the serving size for pinto beans and sausage as well as the need for gravy on mechanical soft meats. The DON and Administrator both stated they expected dietary staff to use the correct serving size and to provide gravy or sauce on mechanical soft diets when called for by the menu.
Incorrect Modified Texture Diets Served
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure mechanically altered diets were served as prescribed for 6 of 6 residents with physician-ordered modified texture diets. Resident 1 had diagnoses including hemiplegia/hemiparesis, failure to thrive, and dysphagia, and her records showed she required a mechanically altered diet with supervision while eating because of choking risk. Her physician order specified a heart healthy level 6 soft and bite sized diet, and her care plan also directed a soft and bite sized diet. On the evening of the incident, Resident 1 was served an incorrect diet and received an unaltered piece of pizza. She began choking in the dining room, and nursing staff responded with the Heimlich maneuver, abdominal thrusts, and back blows. The dislodged food was described as a piece of pizza crust. Nursing staff later confirmed that Resident 1 had been given the wrong food consistency and that the meal served to residents on mechanically altered diets that evening was incorrect. The same meal service issue affected other residents with modified texture diets, including residents with dysphagia, dementia, and cognitive impairment who were documented as needing mechanically altered, minced and moist, or soft and bite sized diets. During observation, staff were seen using diet slips to serve the midday meal, and the administrator stated that residents prescribed modified texture diets had received incorrect diets. The cook stated she had not read the whole meal ticket and only read the diet consistency, which led to the wrong meal being served.
Pureed Diet Menu Items Not Served
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to serve all menu items to seven residents who were ordered pureed diets. During a lunch meal observation, the cook reviewed the diet sheet, verified the menu items to be served, and stated there were seven residents prescribed pureed diets. She pureed eight servings of broccoli and chicken but did not puree the wheat rolls. During the continuous lunch service observation, all seven pureed diets were served without pureed wheat rolls. A menu review later showed that one wheat roll was included in each pureed diet on the approved menu. The cook stated she forgot to include the dinner roll in the pureed diets during preparation and service, and the CDM asked whether the roll had been added to the other pureed items, to which the cook replied no. The Administrator stated the menu should be followed.
Dietary Staff Did Not Follow Ordered Therapeutic Diets and Resident Preferences
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure dietary staff served meals that met residents’ therapeutic needs and preferences for 2 of 5 residents reviewed for diet orders. Resident #18 had diagnoses including diabetes, aphasia, and morbid obesity, was severely cognitively impaired with a BIMS score of 0, and was dependent on staff for eating. The resident’s physician order called for a regular diet with pureed texture, thin consistency, small portions, and double protein. During observation, dietary staff prepared pureed lunch items by blending three servings of country fried steak with beef broth and dividing the protein between two residents, giving Resident #18 1.5 servings instead of the ordered double protein and also dividing pureed carrots, mashed potatoes, and bread so the resident received 1.5 servings of each item. Resident #49 had diagnoses including stroke, chronic respiratory failure, and malnutrition, with severe cognitive impairment and dependence on staff for eating. The resident’s order was for a general diet with mechanical soft texture and nectar consistency for pleasure per request, and records noted dysphagia following cerebral infarction with speech therapy recommendations for pureed food. During observation, the resident was served a whole barbeque pork rib patty on one meal and a whole chicken fried steak patty on another, and staff had to cut up the meat or the resident refused to eat it. The resident stated she did not ask for meat to be served whole and wanted it ground into small pieces. The dietary manager stated the resident had previously sent back mechanical soft food and requested regular meat instead of ground meat.
Menu Portion Sizes Not Followed for Texture-Modified Diets
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to follow the planned menu and the posted scoop and dipper sizes for texture-modified diets. The Spring/Summer 2026 menu specified that chopped Hamburger Steak for lunch on Tuesday, 06/23/2026, was to be served with a #10 dipper, and Puree Lasagna for dinner that same day was to be served with a #6 dipper. On Wednesday, 06/24/2026, the menu specified that chopped Fried Chicken and Puree Fried Chicken for lunch were each to be served with a #10 dipper. The facility’s diet manual and menu policy stated that menus are to be preplanned, followed, and include the correct portion size for each modified diet item. During observations, a 3 oz. spoodle was used for chopped Hamburger Steak at lunch, a #8 dipper was used for Puree Lasagna at dinner, and a 3 oz. spoodle was used for chopped Fried Chicken while a #12 dipper was used for Puree Fried Chicken at lunch. The Dietary Supervisor and an employee both stated the menu was not followed and acknowledged that the utensils used were not equal to the portion sizes listed on the menu. The Dietary Supervisor also stated there was a shortage of serving dippers/scoops because some had broken, and that the residents could potentially be affected by weight loss from the menu not being followed.
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.