Delayed Nutrition Orders and Inadequate Monitoring of High-Risk Residents
Summary
The facility failed to ensure nutritional recommendations were implemented in a timely manner for residents receiving enteral nutrition and other high-risk nutritional care. Resident #25, who had multiple serious diagnoses including chronic respiratory failure with ventilator dependence, tracheostomy, gastrostomy status, dysphagia, diabetes, congestive heart failure, and a history of traumatic injuries, was assessed for tube feeding and later had a recommendation to increase Jevity 1.5 from 40 ml per hour to 60 ml per hour. The recommendation was not ordered until 11/19/25, and the RD verified that the change had not been implemented until then after the recommendation had been communicated to ADON #350 by email and written notice. Resident #11, admitted with diagnoses including acute duodenal ulcer with perforation, acute kidney failure, acute respiratory failure with ventilator dependence, anemia, sepsis, diabetes, and other serious conditions, had a nutrition assessment recommending 30 ml of liquid protein daily to promote wound healing. The recommendation was made on 11/18/25, but the physician order was not entered until 12/02/25 and started on 12/03/25. The RD stated the expectation was that the facility would implement the recommendation within 24 to 48 hours after notification, and verified that the supplement was not implemented until 12/03/25 after the recommendation had been sent to ADON #350 and placed under the ADON’s door. Resident #2, who was dependent on enteral feeding, dialysis, and had diagnoses including chronic respiratory failure, end stage renal disease, dysphagia, and nutritional deficiency, was found to have tube feeding that did not meet estimated energy needs. The admission nutrition assessment documented estimated needs of 1500 to 1700 calories and about 55 grams of protein, while the ordered Nepro at 35 ml per hour for 20 hours provided 1260 calories and 56 grams of protein. After weight loss was identified, the tube feeding was increased to 40 ml per hour and later to 45 ml per hour, but the resident continued to lose weight. On observation, the tube feeding pump was not powered on after dialysis and the LPN verified it had not been restarted since the resident returned from dialysis at noon. Resident #21, who had sepsis, moderate protein calorie malnutrition, end stage renal disease requiring dialysis, diabetes, encephalopathy, cerebral infarction, dysphagia, and acute respiratory failure, was also receiving enteral feeding that did not meet estimated energy needs. The admission nutrition assessment documented estimated needs of 1682 calories and 67 grams of protein, while the ordered Vital AF at 45 ml per hour for 20 hours provided 1296 calories and 81 grams of protein. After significant weight loss was documented, the RD requested an increase to 65 ml per hour on 12/05/25, but the order was not implemented until 12/20/25 after a second request. The RD and ADON both described a breakdown in communication regarding who was responsible for contacting the physician and notifying the family. Resident #33, who had end stage renal disease, congestive heart failure, diabetes, morbid obesity, and dialysis dependence, was identified as high nutritional risk but was not evaluated on a monthly basis as expected. The record showed monthly nutrition notes were documented through 07/21/25, then none again until 10/14/25, despite the resident being considered high risk and having significant weight loss. The facility’s policy stated that significant weight loss or gain should be reported to the DON and reviewed in a risk meeting, and that nursing should notify the physician and family of significant weight loss. The record also showed the resident was not care planned to be on a weight loss program.
Penalty
Resources
Below are regulatory guidelines relevant to this citation:
Trusted data from CMS and state health departments
Every citation, penalty and Plan of Correction is sourced from public CMS records (latest release July 29, 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.