cms_GU: 35
Data source: Big Local News · About: big-local-datasette
| rowid | facility_name | facility_id | address | city | state | zip | inspection_date | deficiency_tag | scope_severity | complaint | standard | eventid | inspection_text | filedate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 35 | GUAM MEMORIAL HOSPITAL AUTHORITY | 655000 | 499 NORTH SABANA DRIVE | BARRIGADA | GU | 96913 | 2016-09-29 | 361 | F | 0 | 1 | H7FJ11 | Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility did not designate a person as food service director who received frequently scheduled consultation from a qualified dietitian. Findings include: 1. During the initial kitchen tour at 9:10 a.m. on 9/26/16, a dietary staff (DS11) stated that while he was the designated individual in charge of the kitchen for the day, he was, however, not the director of food service. In the same interview, DS11 added that the facility had dietary technicians available two times a week, as well as a registered dietitian who worked part time and was available only on Saturdays. During a separate interview at 10:45 a.m. on 9/26/16, a dietary technician (DS12) stated that she and another technician (DS13) shared coverage and that one of them was available in the facility two days a week on Monday and Wednesday. DS12 stated that she allocated some time in the kitchen but most of her time was spent on direct patient care conducting screening and follow-ups. Review of the position description (PD) revealed that while the dietary technician can assist in the supervision of the department, it did not identify either technicians (DS12, DS13) as director of food service with inherent duties and responsibilities. 2. While the position description noted that the dietary technician could perform basic nutritional screening of patients under the supervision of the clinical dietitian, there was no documentation available indicating that the screening process as well as the provision of nutritional care were being supervised by the registered dietitian. In addition, there was no documentation that consultations were being regularly scheduled between dietary technicians and the registered dietitian. While the facility maintained a communication log documenting tasks by the dietary technicians that were accomplished or were pending, there was no indication that the log was being reviewed by the registered dietitian to ensure that screening or progress notes, for example, were conducted timely and addressed the residents' identified needs. 3. Review of medical records revealed the lack of indication of dietary staff involvement in the development of care plans for nutritionally compromised residents. Review of the medical records of Residents 3 and 9, for example, revealed that licensed nursing staff were developing care plans and interventions for residents identified to be at nutritional risk. Review of Resident 3's medical record, for instance, revealed that for the most current admission on 6/08/15, the clinical dietitian had not identified an acceptable parameter of nutritional status (such as weight) even while the resident was described as having fluctuating weights. Record review also noted that the last progress note by the clinical dietitian was on 11/29/15. (Cross-refer to F325) 4. There was no indication that food complaints from residents were being elicited and addressed. In several confidential interviews, residents stated that meals served, including alternates and evening snacks were repetitive. One resident stated that eggs were a frequent occurrence, and that you get tired of chicken after a while. During an interview on 9/28/16, an administrative staff for hospital food services (Admin 01) stated that she could not remember when the facility's menu cycles were last reviewed and revised, adding that the review might have been done a long time ago. | 2020-09-01 |