1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32 | 9099C-1.. Allegation: Staff did not notify responsible party of resident's change of diet. The complaint states that resident’s family member visited the facility in early March 2024 and found out (R1) was put on a liquid diet that she was not made aware of.
Resident (R1's) physician's report, dated 2/2/2023, notes resident has a special diet of “mechanical soft finger foods”. The Administrator stated that (R1's) physician signed off on a pureed diet on 1/26/24, after (R1) "got a small piece of soap in her mouth from another resident's room, which caused her lip to swell". LPA observed the hospice order on 1/4/24 for one time dose of Diphenhydramine 25 mg for lip swelling (2 tablets). LPA reviewed a hospice order, written on 1/25/24, to “downgrade (R1's) diet to pureed diet”, and a subsequent order, written on 3/7/24, to “upgrade (R1's) diet to soft mechanical”.
The Administrator stated (R1) was placed back on a soft mechanical diet on/around March 2024. (2) culinary staff, who have worked at the community for many years, stated that (R1) has always had a mechanical soft diet but was changed to a pureed diet, for a short time, but has been changed back to mechanical soft diet. LPA observed a posted notice in the kitchen that shows (R1) has a "Mechanical Soft Diet". One culinary staff stated the list is updated regularly when there are new residents or a resident's diet has changed. RCC stated that she told the hospice nurse (R1) prefers finger foods, but the nurse did not agree to change (R1) from a pureed back to a mechanical soft until March 2024, stating "the nurse thought (R1) was eating well on the pureed diet"; however, (R1) would still take other resident's mechanical soft food from their plates. On 6/13/24, LPA observed (R1) to be able to eat soft food for lunch, using her fingers.
Both the Administrator and RCC stated the hospice company would have called (R1's) responsible person in Jan and March 2024. when the orders were written. LPA confirmed with a hospice social worker on 6/13/24 that it is documented in their notes that on 1/4/24 and 1/25/24, hospice had "updated (R1's) daughter". The nurse confirmed that their notes did not indicate if the contact was made by phone, e-mail or another way, and that the responsible person of record would have been the family member who was called. The Administrator confirmed that (R1's) other family member was the legal contact person of record and the family member who visited was a secondary contact.
Based on information obtained, LPA finds the allegation to be UNSUBSTANTIATED- A finding that the complaint is Unsubstantiated means that although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of the evidence to prove that the alleged violation occurred.
cont on 9099C-2..
|