During the course of investigation, LPA conducted 10-day visit on 10/17/24, made observations and conducted interviews. Based on observations, there was a menu posted on the wall with food options, there were signs including high aspiration risk foods to avoid (rice, bread, baked goods, corn, hot dogs, sausages, all raw fruits/vegetables, dry and tough meats needed to be soft, cut into ¼” pieces with added moisture, etc. Foods allowed for mechanical soft diets, also known as “diced” or “chopped”. Reminders of food allergy with names of residents, four groups of staff assigned to assist residents during morning and afternoon meals. Based on records review of resident’s physician reports 10 out of 21 residents do have special diets on file. Resident’s (R1) initial prescribed diet texture dated 9/25/24 recommends as Puree, soft, bite-sized, nectar thick liquids; but according to the reporting party the facility provided R1 with regular solids and thin liquids. Then, R1’s diet texture was re-assessed on 9/26/24 and they were upgraded and recommended mechanical soft solids, nectar thick liquids. Staff training records indicates that staff have received required training hours regarding food management including assistance with feeding the residents. The facility provided LPA with the last four weeks’ menu served to residents, which appears to be appropriate for residents with special diet orders. Based on confidential interviews conducted with witness, staff, and residents. LPA have contacted the reporting party on 10/16/24, who confirmed their concerns regarding staff not following resident’s special diet due to a lack of training or education regarding caring for individuals with swallowing disorders and not adhering to recommendations for modified diet textures and liquid consistencies. According to the reporting party, the licensee refused training about food preparation of mechanically altered solids and thickened liquids offered by an outside agency due to their impression that food options and management is perceived as adequate for residents in care. Per staff (S1, S2, S3, S4, S5 & S6) they are informed by their supervisors when a resident’s diet has changes, also they do review signs posted on the kitchen’s wall instructing them about resident’s orders, allergies and assistance needed with their food. According to staff, residents are being offered with different food options to meet their preferences, their weekly menus are rotated every week, and staff did not recall any incident where a resident have chocked due to been provided with the wrong meal option. Interviews conducted with residents (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5 & R6) did not reveal any concerns, challenges or incidents with the food service provided by the facility. A finding that the complaint allegation occurs of facility is not following resident’s special diet is unsubstantiated meaning that although the allegations may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED.