Findings Of Fact In October 1978 Bonnie Ray Solomon Crawford, LPN was employed at the West Pasco Hospital, New Port Richey, Florida as a licensed practical nurse provided by Upjohn Company's rent-a-nurse program. On 7 October 1978 Respondent signed out at 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m., and on 8 October 1973 at 8:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. for Demerol 75 mg for patient Kleinschmidt (Exhibit 2). Doctor's orders contained in Exhibit 4 shows that Demerol 50 mg was ordered by the doctor to be administered to patient Kleinschmidt as needed. Nurses Notes in Exhibit 4 for October 7, 1978 contains no entry of administration of Demerol at 10:00 a.m. and at 2:00 p.m. shows administration of 50 mg. and Phenergan 25 mg. Exhibit 3, Narcotic Record for Demerol 50 mg contains two entries at 8:15 a.m. on October 7, 1978 and one entry at 12:30 p.m. where Respondent signed out for Demerol 50 mg. for patients King, Zobrist and King in chronological order. Nurses Notes for King, Exhibit 6, and Zobrist, Exhibit 5, contain no entry that Demerol was administered to patient Zobrist at 8:15 a.m. or to patient King at 12:30 p.m. on 7 October 1978. In fact, the record for Zobrist shows that Zobrist was discharged from the hospital on October 5, 1978. Failure to chart the administration of narcotics constitutes a gross error in patient care and is not acceptable nursing practice. Similarly it is not acceptable nursing practice to withdraw narcotics not contained in doctors orders or administer medication not in doctors orders. When confronted by the Nursing Administrator at West Pasco Hospital with these discrepancies in the handling of Demerol, Respondent stated that she failed to check the identity of the patient before administering medication and that she didn't feel she should be giving medications any more. Following this confrontation with the hospital authorities, Respondent was fired for incompetency. No evidence was submitted regarding Respondent's 1975 disciplinary proceedings.
Findings Of Fact Based on the admissions of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence and on the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact. Respondent, Kimberly Bauzon, L.P.N., is a licensed practical nurse in the state of Florida, having been issued license number PN 0803361. Respondent has been so licensed at all times material to the allegations in the complaint. Between the dates of October 25, 1985, and December 2, 1985, the Respondent was employed as an LPN by the Care Unit of Jacksonville Beach. On various occasions during her employment as an LPN at the Care Unit of Jacksonville Beach, Respondent charted vital signs for patients that she had not, in fact, taken. On or about November 21, 1985, while employed as an LPN on duty at the Care Unit of Jacksonville Beach, without authority or authorization, Respondent left her unit within the Care Unit for at least thirty (30) minutes. During that period of at least thirty (30) minutes on November 21, 1985, during which Respondent was out of her unit, there was no nurse present in the unit to take care of patient needs. Also on or about November 21, 1985, while on duty at the Care Unit of Jacksonville Beach, Respondent was asleep for a period of at least two (2) hours. On one occasion during Respondent's employment at the Care Unit of Jacksonville Beach, Respondent pulled a male adolescent by the waistband at the front of his trousers in the course of directing the patient to provide a urine specimen. The manner in which Respondent pulled on the patient's clothing was inappropriate and unprofessional. It is unprofessional conduct and a departure from minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice for an LPN to be asleep while on duty. It is unprofessional conduct and a departure from minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice for an LPN to chart vital signs which she has not, in fact, taken. It is unprofessional conduct and a departure from minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice for an LPN to leave her unit for a period of thirty (30) minutes in the absence of a replacement nurse.
Recommendation In view of all of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Board of Nursing enter a final order in this case finding the Respondent guilty of one incident of violation of Section 464.018(1)(d), Florida Statutes, and four incidents of violation of Section 464.018(1)(f), Florida Statutes. And in view of the provisions of Rule 210-10.05(4)(d), Florida Administrative Code, it is recommended that the Board of Nursing impose a penalty consisting of a letter of reprimand and further consisting of a requirement that Respondent attend required specific continuing education courses, with an emphasis on the legal responsibilities of a nurse to the patients under her care. DONE AND ORDERED this 19th day of March, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. M. M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of March, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Lisa Bassett, Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Kimberly Bauzon, LPN 2968 Songbird Trail Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233 Kimberly Bauzon, LPN 216B Seagate Avenue, #B Neptune Beach, Florida 32233 Joe Sole, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Van Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Judie Ritter, Executive Director Board of Nursing Department of Professional Regulation Room 504, 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32201 =================================================================
The Issue Whether the license of the Respondent, Virginia Downey White, License No. 24571-1, should be revoked or suspended, or whether the Respondent should be placed on probation.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Virginia Downey White, holds Licensed Practical Nurse License No. 24571-1. During the time pertinent to this hearing the Respondent was employed as a licensed practical nurse at St. Catherine Laboure Manor a nursing home in Jacksonville, Florida. An Administrative Complaint was issued against the Respondent on April 20, 1979, alleging unprofessional conduct. The Respondent requested an administrative hearing. Prior to an investigation by the personnel at St. Catherine Laboure Manor, and prior to the issuance of the Administrative Complaint against Respondent White, a call had been received at the nursing home stating that medications were not being properly given by the Respondent to her patients. On her own initiative, Priscilla Garske, a co-worker and licensed practical nurse who knew Respondent White, made a random selection of ten (10) patients from approximately twenty-five (25) assigned to the Respondent, listing the names of those ten (10) selected and listing their medications by their names in her nursing notes on March 25, 1979. Ms. Garske did not work on March 26, but on March 27, 1979, she returned to work on the 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift. On that date, after Ms. Garske had again counted medications for the same patients listed in her nursing notes, she reported to Florence Thibault, R. N., Director of Nurses at St. Catherine Laboure Manor, that the count was identical. Ms. Garske had checked the patients' medication sheets on which medications which had been given were to be charted and found that the medications had in fact been charted for these particular patients on March 25, 26 and 27, 1979, by the Respondent. Ms. Garske gave her nursing notes to Ms. Thibault when she reported her findings. Ms. Thibault examined the list of patients in Ms. Garske's nursing notes and their list of medications and immediately directed two (2) other nurses to check the medication cards against the list. Alberta Neeley and Eva Itameri, both licensed practical nurses, went to the units and checked Ms. Garske's list against the medication cards for the numbers of medications that were left. They returned with their findings, which indicated that six (6) of the ten (10) patients on the list had the same numbers of pills on their cards on that date, March 27, as they had had on March 25, 1979. Ms. Thibault then made a list of the same patients with their medications by their names, called Respondent White and discharged her from her employment, indicating to the Respondent that she had failed to give patients their medications while improperly charting on their records that they had received such medication. Of the ten (10) patients listed in Ms. Garske's nursing notes and by Ms. Thibault, it was alleged that Respondent White had failed to give medications to six (6) of them, whose records were introduced into evidence. It was stipulated at the hearing that the remaining four (4) patients on the list had in fact received their medications from the Respondent. Respondent White was responsible for giving medications to half of some fifty-eight (58) patients on her floor, who were mainly aged and infirm people. The patients on the list had not been questioned as to whether they had in fact received medication during the time in question. Each patient on the floor had a medication card with twenty-five (25) to thirty (30) pills on it, each pill being encircled by a plastic bubble. Some patients had more than one card. Some patients had one card opened and one not opened, and some patients had two (2) cards opened, although it was the policy of the nursing home to give all the pills from one card before a new card was opened. On the medication cart there were additional stock medications, such as vitamins, which were given the patients from time to time. The counts made on the medication cards of the patients on the list who were the responsibility of the Respondent were made from one medication card only according to the testimony of Ms. Garske. Eva Itameri, a nursing supervisor at St. Catherine Laboure Manor during the time pertinent to this hearing, and who had been instructed by Ms. Thibault to accompany Alberta Neeley to the floor on which Respondent White worked and to make an examination of the medication cards of the ten (10) patients on the list, pulled the cards from the patients' files, and Ms. Neeley wrote down their names and the numbers of medications on their cards. Ms. Itameri did not question the patients at the time she was making her investigation, stating that the patients on the floor whore the Respondent worked were very confused and disoriented. Ms. Itameri stated that it normally took about an hour to pass out medications each morning, and that sometimes the stock medications from the medication cart were also dispensed to the patients. Alberta Neeley, the licensed practical nurse who accompanied Ms. Itameri as instructed by Ms. Thibault at the time pertinent to this hearing, stated she talked in general with the patients at that time, but that she did not make a list of those to whom she had talked and did not specifically ask whether they had received their medications. Ms. Neeley also stated that the situation at St. Catherine Laboure' Manor was subject to "a turn- over in staff." At the hearing, Ms. Garske stated that all ten (10) patients listed in her nursing notes had had the same numbers of medications on their cards when counted by her on March 27, 1979, as they had had on March 25, but that each of those patients had been charted by Respondent White as having been given their medications each day as required. It can not be reliably ascertained from the testimony and evidence presented at the hearing whether the medications for the six (6) patients, whose records were introduced into evidence, had in fact been given to them as indicated on their charts. Whether Respondent White gave them medications from a different card than previously used, whether some medications were given from the stock medications, or whether some of the six (6) patients were not medicated is unknown. The patients were not questioned, and if they had been questioned would not have remembered. Respondent White stated she gave the medications as required. There was ill feeling between Respondent White and Ms. Garske, her co- worker, who made the initial count of the medications and reported that the Respondent had not given medications to the patients. Alberta Neeley, one of the witnesses for the Petitioner Board, was in doubt as to whether the count she and Ms. Itameri made as instructed by Ms. Thibault would conclusively indicate that medications had not been given patients. From time to time during her employment at St. Catherine Laboure Manor, Respondent White misplaced medications for patients and required assistance from other nurses to locate such medications. She finished giving her patients medications in less time than did the two (2) other nurses, although each nurse had approximately the same number of patients to medicate. Both Eva Itameri and Alberta Neeley, as witnesses for the Petitioner Board, stated they felt Respondent White to be a good nurse, but they had some reservations as to her general nursing performance. No proposed findings of fact or memoranda of law were submitted to the Hearing Officer by the parties.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Petition in this matter be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of October, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Julius Finegold, Esquire 1107 Blackstone Building 233 East Bay Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 William J. Sheppard, Esquire 215 Washington Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Geraldine B. Johnson, R. N. Board of Nursing Ill Coastline Drive East, Suite 504 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Findings Of Fact On December 9, 1980, Petitioner was working as a student nurse at University Community Hospital, Tampa, Florida. She was in her next to last quarter as a student in the Registered Nurse Program at Hillsborough Community College. Her supervisor had assigned Petitioner to provide exclusive care to a comatose patient who had both a tracheostomy and a gastrostomy. Attached to the trachea of this patient was a tube into which oxygen and water were added to help patient's respiration and to keep the proper moisture content in his lungs. The hole was covered by a mask which could be slipped aside by the nurse to suction fluids emerging from the lungs. This suctioning around the trachea was required every few minutes, hence the assignment of Petitioner to only one patient during this shift. Petitioner was informed she would get this assignment one or two days prior and had visited the patient's room, read his charts, and studied the nursing required before reporting for duty on 9 December 1980. She was fully aware of the tracheostomy, gastrostomy, and the purpose and function of each. Petitioner reported for work at 6:00 a.m. on December 9, 1980, and was assigned to the comatose patient as noted above. She spent most of the first two hours suctioning and cleaning around the tracheostomy and generally caring for the patient, which included turning the patient. From her observation and study Respondent was aware of the tube into the abdomen of this patient by which he was to be fed. Shortly after 8:00 a.m. on December 9, 1980, Petitioner prepared the bag for liquid feeding of the patient and hung it on the IV pole alongside the patient's bed. She then connected the tube from the feeding bag to the tracheostomy tube. Around 8:45 a.m. James Holly, a respiratory therapy technician, entered the room and saw Petitioner standing alongside the patient's bed with the feeding bag on the IV pole and the tube from the bag leading to the tracheostomy of the patient. He immediately yelled words to the effect that the feeding tube is connected to the treach and ran to the opposite side of the bed from which Petitioner was standing. Petitioner heard a noise, immediately realized what was happening and removed the feeding tube from the trachea. Holly testified the patient coughed once violently; Petitioner testified-the patient did not cough violently. In either, event the patient's lungs were checked immediately with a stethoscope, the supervising nurse was sent for and Petitioner's supervisor was called. The patient received very little, ,if, any, feeding fluid into his lungs and suffered no adverse effects from this incident. Petitioner's supervisor discussed the incident with Petitioner, assisted her in giving the patient his morning feeding and concluded Petitioner was capable of caring for the patient for the rest of the shift. Petitioner remained with the patient throughout the shift and gave the patient his twelve o'clock feeding without assistance or incident. Petitioner's supervisor reported the incident to the Director of Nursing at Hillsborough Community College, who called a meeting of the evaluating committee the following day. At the evaluation hearing Petitioner could give no explanation of why she had connected the feeding tube to the tracheostomy tube rather than the gastrostomy tube, nor could she explain at this hearing why she did it. In Petitioner's words, "If I knew why I did it, it wouldn't have happened." Following the meeting of the evaluating committee Petitioner was dismissed from nursing school and her subsequent application for readmission was denied. Her application to take the licensed practical nurse examination, for which her time as a student nurse qualified for the licensed practical nurse training requirements, was denied by Respondent and Petitioner requested this hearing. Prior to the incident of 9 December 1980 Petitioner was regarded by her supervisors as well motivated, good with patients, and well organized. Petitioner is 37 years old and has wanted to be a nurse for a long time. She readily acknowledges that she knew the patient was to be fed through the gastrostomy tube, that the patient could not be fed through the tracheostomy tube and that it would be very dangerous to attempt to do so. Her inability to give any explanation of why she attached the feeding tube to the tracheostomy was a major factor in the evaluation board's determination to dismiss Petitioner from nursing school. Transmitting liquid into a patient's lungs through a tracheostomy tube constitutes a very dangerous procedure which could prove fatal to the patient either from suffocation (if a sufficient quantity of fluid was injested) or through infection in the lungs from the unsterilized liquid. Committing such act constitutes a failure to conform to minimum standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practices. Petitioner was sufficiently advanced in her training to know the proper procedures to be followed in such a case, and Petitioner readily acknowledges that she did know the proper procedures to follow and is unable to account for her deviation therefrom.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto Respondent was licensed as a licensed practical nursing in Florida and was employed at the Lake Wales Convalescent Center. On the evening of December 29, 1983, Respondent was called into patient Allen's room by the nurses aide because Allen had refused to get into his pajamas as requested and was verbally abusing the aide. Respondent approached Allen, who began swearing at her, whereupon Respondent rolled up a towel and struck Allen several times on the left arm causing some bleeding and bruises which were visible to another witness two days later. Respondent does not deny striking Allen with the towel but contends Allen picked up a pitcher and called her a nigger before she picked up the towel. Respondent denies any intent to hurt the patient and testified she has worked as a licensed practical nurse for 15 years and has never before struck a patient. Allen is senile, often verbally abusive, but has never been violent while a patient at Lake Wales Convalescent Center. He does not bruise as easily as do many elderly patients. It is below the minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice to strike a patient and, especially, a senile patient who is not violent.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the matters under consideration here, Respondent was licensed by the State of Florida as a practical nurse, under license #0692631. Cynthia J. Pagonis entered University Hospital in Jacksonville, Florida, on April 11, 1983, for a routine laparoscopy to be performed the following morning. Early on the morning of the day of her surgery, April 12, 1983, Respondent, who was one of her nurses, came into her room with two other nurses, one of whom gave her a shot. While this was done, Respondent stood back and observed. Somewhat later, he again came back into her room with a rolling table onto which he told her to climb so he could take her down to the operating room. By this time she was somewhat drowsy from the shot. She asked Respondent what was in it and he told her, whereupon he wheeled her to surgery. After the procedure, that afternoon, Ms. Pagonis recalls him entering her room several times. One time, he checked her I.V. bottle--other times, he did nothing for her and, sleepy as she was, this concerned her because she wanted to sleep and Respondent's visits disturbed her. During this period, other nurses also came in to check her blood pressure or do something else, but Respondent never did anything--just looked. On the final visit, he came in and said he wanted to check her bandage. With this, he lowered her blanket to below her waist to the extent that her pelvic area was exposed. She was wearing a short hospital gown and nothing else. By this time, several hours after surgery, the anesthetic had worn off so that she knew exactly what was happening. After looking at her bandage, in this case no more than a Band-Aid, he pulled the cover back up and, without warning, bent over and kissed her on the cheek. She was upset when he pulled the blanket down because she felt it was inappropriate for him to do it when her dressing had been checked by another nurse shortly before. She also did not think it was appropriate for a male to be in her room without a chaperone. When Respondent kissed Mrs. Pagonis, he told her he would be off for a few days and for her to take care of herself. Then he left. When Respondent kissed Mrs. Pagonis, she got angry. She had said nothing to him to lead him on. She had asked him what cologne he was wearing and when he told her, she said it smelled nice, but nothing more. Mr. Pagonis entered his wife's room on the morning of her surgery, both before and after the operation. When he was there before she was taken to the operating room, he saw Respondent in the room and Respondent asked him to leave so they could get his wife ready for the operation. When he came back later, after this incident, he found her nervous and upset. She looked to him as if she had been frightened. When she told him what had happened, that this "black male nurse had repeatedly come into her room and was doing nothing" for her, and that he had pulled down her covers and "got his eyes full," Mr. Pagonis became angry and went out to look for Respondent. He could not find Mills, however, and went through the nursing chain of command until he got to Mrs. Davis, the Director of Medical Nursing, to whom he told the story. Mrs. Davis found Mr. Pagonis to be upset, but rational and controlled. He was, in her words, restrained, gentlemanly, and "quite heroic" about the whole situation. Mrs. Davis was first contacted about the incident, while in her office, by a call from the floor nurse on Mrs. Pagonis' floor. The nurse alerted her that Respondent had made advances to a patient. She immediately went up to that floor and met with Mr. Pagonis, whom she then took downstairs to her office where he told her what his wife had related. She then went back up to Mrs. Pagonis' room, in an effort to be fair to everyone, to see how alert Mrs. Pagonis was and how accurate her observations were. Mrs. Davis found her alert, and a clearheaded woman who, in her opinion, had been free of the effects of anesthesia for quite awhile. Mrs. Pagonis told her what had happened, that Respondent had made an unnecessary check of her I.V., since another nurse had just checked her, and then checked her dressing, as described. Mrs. Davis verified that another nurse had recently checked on Mrs. Pagonis and, after checking the incision, concluded that because it was so minor, there was no legitimate need for Respondent to have done so also. In her professional opinion, based on service as a licensed practical nurse since 1971 and as a registered nurse since 1974, the way in which Respondent checked Mrs. Pagonis was inappropriate. The incision and dressing here were so small, it was not necessary to expose the patient all the way to the mons pubis, as Respondent did. In addition, a male nurse should always have a witness present in a situation such as this. As for the kiss, it is a rare situation when it is appropriate for a nurse to kiss a patient. This may be done only in the care of a very old, very young, very sick, long-term patient, where the parties had a long-standing relationship, and the action would be therapeutic. Under the circumstances here, Respondent's kiss of Mrs. Pagonis was inappropriate and unprofessional, notwithstanding Respondent's claim he did it, "but only as a friendly gesture." Mrs. Davis requested Mr. Pagonis to make a written statement. When this was done and signed, Mrs. Davis called for Respondent, who, she found, had signed off his regular shift, but was working overtime. She located him and took him back to her office, where she questioned him about the incident. At first he denied it, but subsequently admitted he had kissed Mrs. Pagonis and pulled down her covers, although he claimed he did this in an appropriate manner. She then sent him back to work and thought about the situation for a while. Having made her decision to discharge the Respondent, she prepared the appropriate paperwork, called him back to her office, and did so. The next day, Mills called her and told her he understood why she had done what she did, told her he loved her, and thanked her. During the period he worked at that hospital, she never had any other difficulty with Respondent. He was cooperative and would come in for extra duty when called. She bad received no direct complaints about his relationship with other patients; and though she was not his immediate supervisor, she understood that his performance of his nursing duties was satisfactory. Somewhat later in the year, in June 1983, Respondent was employed as a Float Nurse at the Jacksonville Convalescent Center, specifically on June 19 and 20, 1983. On those days it was, according to Carol R. Hadnot, Director of Nursing at the Center, his responsibility to change the dressings on certain patients. Respondent was present for duty on those dates. During this period, Fay K.F. Bennett, also a nurse at the Center, as a part of her duties, checked the dressing on several of the patients whose dressings were due to be changed. She found that the dressings had not been changed and that the Patients' charts bore initials and date for the last change, a day or two before. The initials on the charts were D.M., which could have been Respondent or Doris Minard. That initial is not significant, however. What is significant is that there was no note on the chart showing that Respondent had changed the dressings during his duty period as he was required to do. This information was reported to Mrs. Hadnot. It is the general policy at Jacksonville Convalescent Center to counsel an employee before taking discharge action here. This was not done here because before Respondent could be counseled, allegations that Respondent had made sexual advances to three nurses' aids were reported to her. She then discussed the situation with the faculty administrator. They decided that because he was still a probationary employee, the allegations described were sufficient to discharge Respondent without counseling, and this was done.
Recommendation That Respondent's license as a licensed practical nurse be revoked.
The Issue Whether or not the Respondent, Hermine Ledoux Lane, is guilty of a violation of 464.21(1)(a), (1)(b), based upon a revocation of her license to practice as an licensed practical nurse, in the State of Vermont, effective January 14, 1976, after a hearing on December 3, 1975, in which it was concluded that the Respondent had on several occassions signed her name on a patient's clinical record and used the letters "R.N." after said signature and had on three occassions signed her name on a billing form using the initials "R.N." following her signature, when in fact the Respondent was not a registered nurse in the State of Vermont. The Vermont State Board of Nursing concluded this showed the Respondent was guilty of unprofessional conduct in willfully and repeatedly violating Vermont's statutes governing the practice of nursing, in that she did practice professional nursing without being duly licensed.
Recommendation It is recommended that the charges placed against Hermine Ledoux Lane, L.P.N., under license no. 05372-1 be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of February, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Julius Finegold, Esquire 1130 American Heritage Life Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Hermine Ledoux Lane 51 North Union Street Burlington, Vermont 05401
